Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 12

POWERS OF ARREST

Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move, in page 10, line 10, leave out Clause 12.
I can deal with this quite briefly. 1 object to Clause 12 strongly on the ground that it provides unwarranted powers to the Greater London Council to arrest without warrant. I protest because it is an exceptional power to be granted to a local authority. I do not think that I need embroider further. I dealt with the matter on Second Reading.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill to be read the Third time.

TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Employment (Young Persons)

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will discuss with the Scottish Economic Council the problems which will arise in placing school leavers in suitable jobs in 1973 and 1974.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): Reduction of unemployment for both adults and young people is a primary aim of the Government's policies for the stimulation of economic growth and these policies are clearly meeting with success.
The unemployment situation is an important aspect of the Scottish economy which, as my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) on 21st February, is regularly discussed at meetings of the Scottish Economic Council.—[Vol. 851, c. 444–6.]

Mr. Sillars: Despite that answer, does not the Minister agree that the future employment situation facing young people is very grave especially in the light of continuing high unemployment in Scotland? Will he ask the Secretary of State whether he and the council will consider approaching employers in the private and public sectors to increase the apprenticeship intake and opportunities for young people generally over the next two years?

Mr. Younger: I will certainly discuss that with my right hon. Friend. I agree that any unemployment of young people is particularly serious. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that since April 1972 there has been a reduction of 4,902 in unemployment among young persons. That represents a fall of about 44 per cent.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the school leaving age has been raised, which meant that there was no flow of young people from school in January of this year? Does he appreciate that it will probably take until next January to clear those out and that then


there will be a resumed flow with 20,000 youngsters leaving school? Will he take steps to ensure that consideration is given to the provision of work at that time?

Mr. Younger: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that any support we can give must be carefully considered, particularly by the Scottish Economic Council. I am sure he will agree that the main way to secure jobs for these school leavers is to see that the expansion in the economy is kept going and that inflation is defeated. No doubt we will have his support in this.

Land Use (Western Highlands)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the recent representations made to him regarding land use in the Western Highlands.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): We receive many views, both written and oral, about planning proposals involving land use which may or may not become formal planning applications. When they do, most are dealt with by the local planning authority concerned.

Mr. Douglas: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that local authorities have sufficient powers under the planning Acts to deal with the comprehensive applications that come before them? Will he consider using the legislation in the 1972 Act to set up a planning inquiry commission which would be able to point to alternative sites? Will he also condemn the rather passive view expressed in today's Scotsman by the Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board about oil developments in the Highlands?

Mr. Campbell: The planning procedures are laid down in Acts of Parliament passed by this House. I have used the speediest means possible on the appropriate occasions to enable planning permission to be given in an accelerated way, or by calling in applications. The powers of the local authorities are laid down and it would need another Act to change them. If the reform of local government as we have it in our Bill is carried out, the local authorities will become larger and able to cope more easily with large projects.

Mr. MacArthur: What progress is my right hon. Friend making with his consideration of the report on land use in Scotland produced by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Campbell: It is being considered most carefully, as I said recently in the House, and the views of the Government will be made know as soon as practicable.

Mr. Ross: Bearing in mind the welcome given by the Department through the Minister to the new powers being sought by Shetland County Council, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has had applications from either the Highlands and Islands Development Board or the mainland county authorities for the use of compulsory powers in respect of land problems?

Mr. Campbell: I need notice to be able to give a precise answer to that question, but certainly no proposal similar to that of Shetland have been put forward by another county council.

Housing

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement outlining the Government's attitude to the report by the Highlands and Islands Development Board entitled "Housing in the Highlands and Islands".

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The report is still being prepared by the board.

Mr. Strang: Is the Secretary of State aware that the report refers to the serious problems created by second homes in the Highlands? Does he agree that, although most of us are in favour of people having holiday homes in the Highlands, this demand should be met by an increase in the housing stock and not lead to local people being priced out of their home market? Will the right hon. Gentleman have urgent talks with local authorities to find a solution to what is a serious problem in some areas which is bound to get worse as time goes on?

Mr. Campbell: The report has not yet reached me, so I am not aware of what will be put to me. The question of second homes in the Highlands is a serious one of which I am aware. Last November I had discussions with representatives of the local authorities and other bodies concerned on this whole question, which needs urgent consideration, particularly in


view of the welcome boom in the North which has led to new developments and has put great pressure upon housing in that area.

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with local authorities about his proposals to widen their rôle as outlined in "Homes for People: Scottish Housing Policy in the 1970s". Command Paper No. 5272.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The wider rôle which local authorities are encouraged to adopt covers a number of activities on which discussions are held as appropriate.

Mr. Ewing: The Secretary of State says that he holds discussions with local authorities on the widening of their rôle in housing. What wider rôle can local authorities have than that which they have at present? What wider rôle does the Secretary of State envisage local authorities having? Is he aware that the White Paper is probably the biggest non-event in housing history? It makes no new proposals and it refers to discussion on only two specific points—the need to release more land for private house building and the land hoarding charge. Is not the fact that the Minister is responsible for restricting the rôle of local authorities rather than for widening it?

Mr. Campbell: I disagree. The local authorities have wide powers but not all of them are adopting the rôle which those powers enable them to adopt. For example, some are simply becoming letting and repair agencies, whereas they have duties to meet all the housing needs in their areas. I am asked what points are envisaged in the rôle of local authorities. They are set out in the White Paper. I will give the hon. Gentleman one straight away—the selling of council houses in appropriate situations to sitting tenants. That is something which local authorities can do and which many of them unfortunately are not doing.

Mr. Sproat: In the light of what he has said, will my right hon. Friend give the latest figures for the sale of council houses to tenants and say which authorities in particular are holding back?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot without notice give the latest figures. I have given

figures from time to time and I am glad to see a steady increase in the number of council houses being sold. I should like to see many more sold on appropriate occasions because I know that many tenants want to buy their houses and it is sometimes frustrating for them when their local authorities for apparently doctrinal reasons refuse to sell.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what contribution the sale of council houses will make to the solution of the overall housing problem? How much easier is it now for young couples to get a mortgage than it was, say, two years ago?

Mr. Campbell: It is a useful contribution, with others, that can be made to help the housing problem. Where payment is immediately made the local authority is provided with money with which immediately to start building another house for someone on the housing list. One of the objections which have been raised is that in some way this process holds up people who are on the waiting list.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many local authorities have long housing waiting lists and, at the same time, many empty houses that they are unable to let? Is not this one of the major housing problems in our cities which councils themselves should do something about by providing more amenities and glamorising schemes in which houses are empty when there are thousands of names on the waiting list?

Mr. Campbell: I agree that that is one of the misfortunes of the present situation, and it is entirely due to the game of numbers that the Labour Party started in trying to hit a target, which was missed. The Labour Government encouraged local authorities to build houses as fast as they could without proper thought about where they should be, what was the need or whether there were proper amenities. As a result, there are now hundreds of council houses empty although there are many applicants who wish to live in them.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does not the answer given by the Secretary of State show that he has his priorities totally out of context? He is concerned that


council houses should be sold at a time when the replacement rate of new building is lower than is needed to replace houses demolished for slum clearance. When will he tackle the question of raising the house building target?

Mr. Campbell: I said that there were other points in the White Paper, and I gave only one. At Question Time I cannot give a long catalogue. Another point, however, is concentration on slum clearance. The year before last was a record year for Scotland for slum clearance, and last year was very nearly the same. This is one of the important duties of local authorities. They have the powers. There are also other matters such as environmental improvement. I cannot go into them all. These are the areas in which the local authorities have the powers but in which too few of them are adopting the rôle they could adopt by doing a great deal more than simply being letting agencies and carrying out repairs.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he took account of the recently published Shelter report "No Place to Call Home", before publishing the White Paper, "Homes for People".

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Steel: Will the Secretary of State say why there is not a more urgent reflection in the White Paper of the need to co-ordinate work on housing with the social work authorities? It is not good enough to leave it until after the reform of local government. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the legal situation in Scotland is inferior to that in England in terms of the protection of the homeless. Nor is there the same guidance. The number of children in care is higher in Scotland than in England and there is not the same provision of temporary accommodation for the homeless in Scotland as there is in England. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that all this requires urgent attention?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation if he thinks that there has been any oversight. I regard the problem of homelessness as extremely urgent. I am setting up a special body to consider this matter and

to make recommendations. In the meantime local authorities have power to assist.

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to call a meeting with Aberdeen Corporation to discuss the relevance of the recent White Paper on Scottish housing to the special housing problems of Aberdeen and the North-East.

Mr. Younger: I hope that it will be possible to arrange a meeting shortly.

Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend agree that Aberdeen is a special case in matters of housing and problems of land shortage? The increase in house prices is particularly acute in Aberdeen, almost more so than anywhere else in Scotland. May I suggest that my hon. Friend gets in touch directly and as soon as possible with the Lord Provost of Aberdeen to arrange a time for a meeting to discuss these problems?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this matter. He has been to see me several times in recent days about it. I agree that Aberdeen has special problems at the moment. These are due to the fact that large numbers of people are trying to find homes in a limited amount of accommodation. The only solution is to build a lot more houses. My hon. Friend will be glad to hear that I have today written to the Lord Provost and the County Convenor offering to meet them and to give them what help I can regarding this difficult problem. I hope that the meeting will take place before long.

Mr. Robert Hughes: One appreciates the action being taken by the Minister and welcomes the conversion of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) who only recently was telling the people of Aberdeen that it was just hard luck that prices were going up.

Mr. Sproat: Rubbish.

Mr. Hughes: May I ask the Minister, however, whether he will consider meeting not only the Lord Provost of Aberdeen or the County Convener of Aber-deenshire but other county conveners too, because land is being purchased in the area at £25,000 an acre and the price rises by £5,000 an acre every time there is a sale of land?

Mr. Younger: I reject the hon. Gentleman's unfounded suggestion about what my hon. Friend is alleged to have said. For some considerable time my hon. Friend has been raising most actively with me the problem of Aberdeen's housing.
On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I think that it would be wise in the first instance to offer to meet Aberdeen Corporation and the convener for the surrounding area to see whether we can identify special problems in relation to which we can give particular help. The increase in prices is a result of many people chasing a limited amount of accommodation and I hope that local authorities will explore all possible ways of building more houses to meet the demand.

Harbour Facilities (John o'Groats)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to extend and improve the harbour facilities at John o'Groats, Caithness.

Mr. Younger: Responsibility for this harbour rests with Caithness County Council. I am aware of proposals which it is considering for improvements and my officials are to discuss these with the council at an early date.

Mr. Maclennan: Is not that a somewhat disingenuous reply, as the council has already on several occasions approached the Scottish Office for financial assistance and the Government have been unwilling to countenance the original schemes? Is not the Minister aware of the vital importance of the Pentland Firth to fishermen operating out of the John o'Groats area and the development of the tourist industry through the ss "Pen-talina" which is using the John o'Groats harbour and jetty? Will he take more urgent action than he has done in the past?

Mr. Younger: I know that there have been contacts with the county council on this subject for quite a time. As to the original scheme, it was explained that neither the level of the present fishing activity nor the prospects of significant development were such as to justify making grants available for the improvements proposed. We invited the council to produce further proposals. It is in the

course of doing this and my officials are planning to meet the council on 16th May to discuss those proposals, which will be sympathetically considered.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that the ss "Pentalina" has been a great success across the firth and that my constituency welcomes what has been suggested by the council in Caithness? I ask the Minister again to reconsider the matter because the improvement of John o'Groats harbour is a matter of great importance to the North.

Mr. Younger: I agree with that, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we have to look at proposals for harbour investment as a whole according to a system of priorities. Approval for such investment has not normally been given when it is for seasonal traffic, but I will look at the proposals of the Caithness County Council as sympathetically as I can.

House Prices

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the average prices of new and old houses in Scotland in June 1970; and what are the figures at the latest available date.

Mr. Younger: The best information available to me indicates that the average price of a new house mortgaged by a building society in Scotland in the second half of 1970 was £5,504 and of an existing house £4,962. The comparable figures for the second half of 1972 are £6,832 and £6,477, respectively.

Mr. Hamilton: Bearing in mind that shocking reply, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is becoming increasingly difficult for young couples to obtain the down payment and that because of low wages and unemployment they will not get mortgages in Scotland? Does he further agree that because of the Government's rent policy local authorities do not have houses to let, young couples are becoming homeless and the position will get worse? What do the Government intend to do for the homeless?

Mr. Younger: I have always been most concerned about houses being available for young couples to buy, but I cannot accept all that the hon. Gentleman said. Whereas the increase in house


prices generally in England and Wales over the same period has been about 62 per cent., in Scotland it has been about 29 per cent. That is slightly less than the increase in male average earnings over the same period. It does not suggest that the matter is becoming relatively more difficult. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions to make on this topic, I shall consider them carefully.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rise in house prices in Scotland, as in England, is a symptom and not a cause of inflation? May I ask him not to allow himself to be diverted by Opposition and other pressure from tackling the causes and not the symptoms of inflation?

Mr. Younger: I assure my hon. Friend that I will not allow myself to be diverted by any pressure from the Opposition. I am sure that that statement will be welcome to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sillars: Is it not ludicrous to talk about percentage increases and to relate house percentage increases to wage percentage increases? Will the hon. Gentleman do a quick calculation and say what is 29 per cent. of £6,000 and what is 29 per cent. of £30 per week?

Mr. Younger: Surely the correct calculation relates to the effect on a person's weekly budget of having to pay mortgage for a house. The point I was making was that if the rise in house prices has no more than kept pace with the inflation that has taken place over the period, a family with an inflationary wage increase of approximately that amount should be relatively in much the same position.

Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman say from his own personal experience why in his constituency of Ayr the increase in the price of old and new houses is so much higher than the national average?

Mr. Younger: If that is so, it may be because of the fact that, wisely, a great number of people wish to live in my constituency. I am not the least surprised about that. The right hon. Gentleman may know that on Monday I handed over the keys of a brand new house to somebody near his own constituency and the house price was less than £5,000.

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Planning Procedures (Oil Industry)

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of planning applications that are presently being considered by him and local planning authorities for permission to define future Scottish and foreign oil.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Two, as indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) on 5th March, in which also I gave particulars. —[Vol. 852, c. 53.]

Mr. Lambie: When will the Secretary of State start to give permission for construction of oil refineries in Scotland to allow the estimated production by 1980 of 75 million tons of North Sea oil to be refined in Scotland? Is it Government policy to prevent oil refineries being built in Scotland so as to allow Scottish oil to be refined in England and on the continent? Are the Scots destined to become the Arabs of Europe—situated among the richest oil-producing nations in Europe but with the poorest population?

Mr. Campbell: On the question of timing I must make clear that I wish to proceed as quickly as possible with these two applications, but they are being revised by the applicants. I cannot consider them because they have been withdrawn by the applicants for revision and resubmission. Once applications are in the planning machinery, I cannot comment on the merits or demerits of particular proposals. In general, however, my right hon. Friends in the Government and I are making sure that the maximum benefits from this new oil industry, which has begun only in the last two years, will come to Scotland.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State give the House an overall view of the problem of oil refining in Scotland, because the applications that are before him are for export-oriented refineries? Does he appreciate that those of us who represent Stirling and Grangemouth are


concerned about the expansion of existing refineries in Scotland? When will he do something about the situation?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman will note that the original Question refers to both Scottish and foreign oil and that is the Question I have answered. I was also asked what applications were before me. The proposal for the extension of the existing oil refinery at Grangemouth is not in the planning machinery, but statements have been made on this topic by BP.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a commission to co-ordinate planning decisions about oil development in the North and North East of Scotland.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: At present the normal machinery of the planning Acts passed by this House applies and responsibilities are clearly allocated. In addition I have commissioned overall surveys of coastal sites and the impact of oil developments on Scotland.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am grateful for his letter, which I received after putting down my Question, and for the interesting discussion document on rig building? However it bears out my point. The document deals with the geographical aspects of rig building and does not take into account many of the social and economic aspects. It will not, I suppose, be kept up to date. It indicates that there is no suitable site north of Cromarty Firth for deep sea rig building. Practically everyone concerned with planning, such as the National Trust, says that the present procedures all need supplementation and should cover the whole area.

Mr. Campbell: The present procedures are governed by Acts passed by this House. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, I think, that I have used these as flexibly as possible to deal with very unusual situations sometimes requiring great speed and other situations where there is a huge dilemma between the requirements of a new industry and the new and valuable jobs which can be brought in and the need to conserve the environment. Technical points come up all the time such as whether it is possible to build a certain kind of rig north

of a certain area. But a special issue of the Scottish Economic Bulletin is to be published on Monday which will give a great deal of up-to-date information on the Scottish onshore aspects of the new industry and that will supplement what was presented to Parliament in January by the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: When will the overall survey be ready? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as most planning decisions are liable to be held to be wrong by some sections of the population, there is still a need to keep the responsibility for these planning decisions as local as possible?

Mr. Campbell: That is the object of the Acts passed by this House. It is the local planning authorities which start considering applications. Then, depending upon the objections or the nature and magnitude of the questions involved, they come to the Secretary of State. As planning Minister for Scotland I am very much aware that this is an area where the most difficult decisions referred to the Minister are bound to cause offence whatever decisions he takes. Some people will be pleased, others may not. This House has recognised that because it is such an important responsibility it must lie with the Government of the day and cannot be handed over to an appointed body outside the elected representatives.

Mr. Maclennan: Without reflecting upon the actions of local authorities in this matter, may I ask whether the Secretary of State realises that there is genuine and growing concern that before the reorganisation of local government there will be a critical period during which the resources of local authorities will be stretched? We need from the Government some general indications of their planning criteria which we have not had so far. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgency of this in the light of the growing interest of American oil companies in finding refining sites in the north of Scotland because they are unable to find suitable sites in their own country?

Mr. Campbell: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think we have widely publicised the general criteria involved in these planning decisions. In that way we have been able to give guidance to those who are setting up projects so that they


go to sensible places initially and do not choose something like a bird sanctuary as a place for an industrial project. Once an application has been put in under the Act, it has to go through the procedures. No one can definitely say before an application has formally been lodged and gone through the procedures, with opportunities being given for objection, whether something will be successful at a certain site. It is impossible for the Government to give more than general guidance. This we have done. If hon. Members will await the document that is to be published on Monday they will find a great deal more guidance of this kind in it.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the legislation before Parliament there are means for providing the necessary co-ordination between the regions in Scotland and that he has so far refused to take them?

Mr. Campbell: No. I should be glad to pursue this matter with my hon. Friend if he would care to suggest further ways in which we can flexibly deal with the situation, particularly the North Sea oil developments, under the Act. I think we have been able to help in a number of cases. Otherwise, projects now producing hundreds of jobs in certain parts of Scotland would not be there—for example at Nigg Bay, Ardiseer and Methil, in Fife.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that voices are being raised particularly in these areas, not least by his colleague who has to sit silent beside him, suggesting that it is time to call a halt for a reassessment? Is he satisfied that there is power to regulate these developments in a way that will enable local authorities, weak as they are, and the local population to cope with the embarrassing problems that apply to them during the construction period because of the local authorities' failure to get adequate information to make permanent long-term arrangements?
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter in a wider sense than the North of Scotland? Will he have another look at the proposals in the IMEG report which suggest that we should be looking at the extent to which other parts of Scotland could participate in these developments and might therefore

save us from some of the embarrassing decisions that he has to make concerning a part of Scotland which is part of our heritage?

Mr. Campbell: On the last point, the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I gave planning permission for the project at Ardyne Point which is near enough to West-Central Scotland to be of value in that area. There are applications for development in other parts of Scotland as well as the North-East.
I should never say that I am satisfied with the procedures. However, I have to work within them because they have been laid down by this House. It is not possible for me, in a few weeks or months, to put through a new planning Act. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have to work within the present procedures, but I am prepared to consider anything which might improve the situation and to get this House, if it will, to endorse it.

Mr. Ross: Surely the right hon. Gentleman has power within the planning Act to do what he did regarding Hunterston.

Mr. Campbell: I have done that. On appropriate occasions I have called in. On other occasions local authorities have applied to me so that, under the Article 8 procedure, I could give accelerated planning permissions so that they could change their development plans. In two of the projects that I mentioned, which provided hundreds of jobs, I have been able to deal with the planning permission within six weeks.

Physiotherapists (Kirkcaldy)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the approved establishment of physiotherapists in Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, and the number required to be recruited to meet the establishment at the latest available date.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): There are no nationally-approved establishments of physiotherapists. The hospital authorities at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, put their overall requirement at the equivalent of 12·5 whole-time staff, and on this basis the number required to be recruited is equivalent to 9·3.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that the extremely unsatisfactory figures he has given reflect additional pain and suffering to many patients in the area? Does he recall his reply on 21st March stating that the school of physiotherapists at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary had refused admission to over 20 suitable applicants in the past three years? Will he attempt to rectify this scandalous state of affairs by allocating the necessary finance to enlarge the school at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary or, alternatively, by seconding some of the physiotherapists at Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy on a part-time basis?

Mr. Monro: I appreciate that there is a serious shortage of physiotherapists in Scotland, but many steps are being taken. There are 274 students at present in training. One of our major problems is the shortage of instructors. There will be a course starting at Jordanhill next session. Furthermore, the regional hospital board is making every effort to attract back to work those physiotherapists who left for marriage or for other reasons.

M90, Fife (Accidents)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding the recent accidents on the M90 in Fife which resulted in several fatalities and cases of serious injury; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: Fife County Council has recommended to my right hon. Friend that, to reduce the risk of accidents involving stationary vehicles, hard shoulders should be provided throughout the length of the M90 motorway. I announced yesterday that, in view of the substantial growth in traffic expected on M90 as a result of North Sea oil development and other factors, my right hon. Friend has decided to provide hard shoulders.

Mr. Hunter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome news. Does he agree that it was a mistake in the first place not to introduce hard shoulders on the motorway? Does he recall that over two years ago I made representations to him about a hard shoulder and he replied that the volume of traffic was not sufficient to warrant it? I am sure he

will agree that a hard shoulder will not stop accidents altogether but will be a determining factor in reducing them.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to this move. If the original planning of the road was wrong, I have no doubt he will take up the matter with his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). However, I would defend his right hon. Friend by saying that the traffic figures at that time did not justify the provision of hard shoulders. My right hon. Friend has now taken this step in anticipation of the increase in traffic due to North Sea oil and other factors. This is a sensible move at this stage now that we can foresee additional traffic. It will be widely welcomed by all who use the M90.

Sir J. Gilmour: Will my hon. Friend now give immediate consideration, in the planning of bridges and flyovers on the next section of the M90, to the need to construct them of sufficient width to include hard shoulders?

Mr. Younger: I can give that assurance. The next stages, as soon as they are given the go-ahead, will be constructed with hard shoulders.

Land Hoarding

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what up-to-date evidence he has of land hoarding by individual landlords and private building firms in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: Specific evidence has not been presented to me and local planning authorities have not suggested to me that land hoarding is creating significant problems in Scotland at present.

Dr. Mabon: Since the Government make something of this in their White Paper, and since I agree that it is a problem worth examining, would it not facilitate a continuing monitoring of the situation if the Secretary of State took power to have a return of all owners of lands and heritages of above, say, 5 or 10 acres, that return to be kept up to date? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the last time Parliament authorised this was in 1872 and that it is not possible through the Register of Sasines to be certain about present land holdings?


Would not this be a way of establishing land ownership?

Mr. Younger: I shall have to think about that suggestion. But if there is such land holding it will be dealt with by the land hoarding charge which is to be introduced. If it happens, it will be dealt with automatically. It will not be a problem difficult of solution.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Will the arrangements in respect of the land hoarding charge apply fully to Scotland? As many of us rushed back here from the municipal elections in order to hear the answer to Question No. 11 on landlords' and tenants' deflation, is my hon. Friend prepared to give the answer in reply to a supplementary question to Question No. 14?

Mr. Younger: I can understand my hon. Friend's annoyance. However, the answer will be given in written form and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will give it adequate publicity. In reply to his first point, I confirm that the land hoarding charge will apply in Scotland exactly as it is planned to apply in England.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Undersecretary aware that I share his feelings that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart (Mr. Edward Taylor) left Glasgow yesterday very annoyed having been heavily defeated in the local elections? Does the Under-Secretary realise that it is now more than six months since the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended that a land register for Scotland should be drawn up? When does he intend to act upon that?

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has assured the House that the Select Committee's Report is being actively considered. I repeat that assurance. Incidentally, I made no such suggestion about the arrival here of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor). He is, as always, on duty here in good time to do his job, as his constituents and everyone else would expect.

Dr. Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall, with your

assistance, seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Fishing Industry (Training)

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any evidence of the demand for adequate training courses in the fishing industry being in excess of supply; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Monro: I have no reason to think that the facilities for courses leading to certificates of competency are inadequate. A number of applications by fishermen for maintenance grants have had to be rejected by the Scottish Committee of the White Fish Authority through lack of funds. These grants are met from the authority's general levy on the white fish industry, and it is for the authority, in consultation with the industry, to determine what funds should be made available for the purpose.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: While appreciating the full nature of my hon. Friend's reply, and that the Government are aware that training for fishermen is in short supply because of the lack of funds for maintenance grants, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is conscious of the fact that there are problems in the industry about an increased levy since so many sections of it already support other training boards? What can be done to improve the situation in time?

Mr. Monro: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture is in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about the possible implications of training in the industry. I cannot say more at this stage.

Motorway Finance (Glasgow)

Mr. William Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now considered the representations of Glasgow Corporation about the existing financial arrangements for the construction of motorways within the city and beyond the city boundary; and what was the nature of his reply.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has informed the corporation that he sees no justification for a change in the present grant arrangements at this time.

Mr. Hannan: In view of that answer, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present financial arrangements bear inequitably on the citizens of Glasgow, who have to pay 25 per cent. towards the construction of roads in the city, whereas the citizens of adjoining burghs find that the Exchequer bears the whole brunt? Why should my constituency have its community broken up and be decimated by a highway to provide a route into the city centre for commuters from Bearsden and Milngavie?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is an interesting one which I shall want to consider. As for the general arrangements, they are not unreasonable, as the provision of a motorway of this sort has substantial benefits for traffic patterns in the city. Whereas the central Government pay 75 per cent. and the city authority should pay 25 per cent. in the case of Glasgow, of that 25 per cent. about 14 per cent. comes back to the city in the form of rate support grant. The net cost to the corporation, therefore, is not all that severe, and the resultant benefit is the relief of traffic congestion in the city.

Drug Taking (Schools)

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to issue advice to education authorities and school teachers on the problems associated with drug taking.

Mr. Monro: Yes. I am awaiting the advice of the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum which is considering the report of a working party on all aspects of health education including the problems associated with the misuse of drugs.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that news. Will such guidance take account of the extremely good pamphlet published by the Department of Education and Science for England and Wales on drugs in schools? Is he aware that a disturbing report was put out by two researchers at Strathclyde University indicating that there was a significant drug problem among young people in the West of Scotland and that a conflicting view was put forward by other experts in Glasgow? In view of these conflicting reports may I suggest that the Health Department should look at the

problem in the West of Scotland and indicate whether a major problem exists?

Mr. Monro: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend has brought out. We must keep this problem in perspective and in proportion. My hon. Friend has indicated that there was conflicting opinion on the report produced by Strathclyde University. That report and the views of the authorities in Glasgow and of my Department will be borne in mind when we produce the report which I hope will be available by next Session.

Mr. Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we on this side of the House think that his method of handling this problem through the curriculum and health education unit is the best way of doing it? Does he agree that, while we all deplore the increase in the use of drugs, the sensationalism of some of these reports does not help the situation?

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his approach, which is similar to my own. The exaggerations were uncalled for. No one in this House or in Glasgow is complacent about the situation. However, it is not as serious as was made out by the report to which reference has been made. I hope that we shall be able to improve matters still further by the autumn.

Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend agree that alcoholism is still a far greater danger among young people than drug taking? Will he indicate by what further measures he proposes to make young people in schools aware of the dangers of alcoholism?

Mr. Monro: I assure my hon. Friend that I have taken this matter seriously regarding not only children but adults. The more publicity that we can give to this illness the better. Many steps have been taken by the Glasgow Council on Alcoholism.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Is the Minister really aware of the immensity of the problem? I am not particularly pinpointing schoolchildren. I refuse to believe that some of the reports are conflicting to the extent the hon. Gentleman makes out and I refuse to subscribe in any shape or form to the sensationalism that some hon. Members might wish. However, I am concerned that he should


instruct education authorities in Scotland to have a campaign within all schools to inform children of the dangers of drug taking and drug experimentation. I have asked him to do this before. I ask him again to instruct local education authorities in Scotland to have such a campaign in all schools.

Mr. Monro: I will deal with what should happen within schools after the advice from the Department is given in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman should realise that there is a limit to the exaggeration of this problem. The Glasgow police have an active and efficient drug squad. In 1971 there were 17 cases relating to children, eight cases in 1972, and so far this year only two cases. We must keep matters in proportion.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Icelandic Fisheries

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Anglo-Icelandic fisheries dispute.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs what discussions have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Icelandic Government on the current fishing dispute with Iceland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): As hon. Members will know, ministerial talks between the British and Icelandic Governments are now to take place in Reykjavik on 3rd and 4th May, provided the situation on the fishing grounds so permits.

Mr. Wall: I welcome the resumption of these talks, but does my hon. Friend agree that the uncertainty which has gone on for eight months must be ended one way or another? Does he also agree that the British industry has made considerable concessions and that there are limits beyond which it cannot go?

Mr. Royle: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am glad to say that there has been a reduction of tension at the

fishing grounds since the dates for talks were agreed.

Mr. McNamara: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that everybody welcomes the fact that the talks are to take place and hopes that it will be possible to put behind us the unhappy incidents of the past eight months? Will he confirm that there has been no suggestion by Her Majesty's Government that this is anything more than an interim solution and that we are not prepared to give way on the principle of the 50-mile limit, which is due to be considered at the international conference?

Mr. Royle: That is correct.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I accept and welcome the fact that talks are to take place in Iceland. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is doing everything he can with our European partners to ensure that until this dispute is settled the 50-mile limit is not accepted, while the existing 12-mile limit is, and that there is accord between ourselves and the Europeans about there being no imports from, and no agreement with, Iceland about the trade position in Europe?

Mr. Royle: Yes, Sir. We are in close touch with the German Government in particular, and we shall continue to keep in touch with them on the problem as a whole.

Mr. James Johnson: While all sensible people, on both sides, in Iceland and here, welcome the fact that the talks are beginning tomorrow, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept two things: first, that in the long term there are much bigger issues than catching fish in this whole matter of international limits which will be settled next year, 1974, at Santiago; and, secondly, that in the short term the lives and livelihood of our constituents on Humberside have been at issue and at stake for about seven months? It is therefore my belief that the less said today the better, in view of the fact that the talks are beginning tomorrow.

Mr. Royle: I should not disagree with any remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. Obviously everyone on both sides of the House is hopeful that these talks will prove to be successful.

Leader of the Opposition (Prague Visit)

Sir S. McAdden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost to public funds of the message passed recently from the British Embassy in Prague to London at the behest of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): Seventy-four pence.

Sir S. McAdden: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the cheapness of the cost involved is almost equalled by the subsequent antics? Will he confirm that the services of the Foreign Office were confined to conveying the message from the sender to the recipient and that it played no subsequent part in the proceedings?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall not comment on the first part of my hon. Friend's question. This service is a normal courtesy offered to senior members of the Opposition when they go overseas, and this is right. There was no leak of the text of the message sent by the Leader of the Opposition or the fact that there had been a message from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it was not my Press secretary who called the conference.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although many of us on this side of the House think it is about time this whole business was dropped by the media, the actions of my right hon. Friend were perfectly justified and that he helped in a very difficult situation? It is time that this country accepted the good faith of people when they are trying to do a job on behalf of its citizens.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is high time the episode was closed, but who the media were, and who did the job, I would not know.

French Nuclear Tests

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the Prime Minister of Australia regarding the series of French nuclear test explosions in the Pacific.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mr. Whitlam referred to the communiqué of the South Pacific Forum and asked that it be drawn to the attention of the French Government. This I have done.

Mr. Allaun: If the British Government are opposed to these tests, as they say they are, why have they not the guts to press the French Government, as Mr. Whitlam and the New Zealanders are doing, to stop them?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As I have said many times in this House, we have made our position plain to the French Government. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I must state as a fact that we have many times told the French Government that we do not think these tests ought to be held in the atmosphere. That is our position—and we have made it clear—and that of those on the spot in our dependent territories.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the New Zealanders are proposing deliberately to send a frigate into the area in order to test the situation in the environment? Having regard to the interests of the British Crown in this area and the position of the Pitcairn islanders, who the Prime Minister has denied have any interest in this controversy though my information is that the fall-out from nuclear weapons in that area is acute and has already influenced the flora and fauna on the island, may I ask my right hon. Friend to re-examine that aspect of the matter?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend may have his own people whom he consults on the matter of fall-out. All I can say is that following the previous tests, all of which we have monitored, there has been no appreciable increase in the pollution of the atmosphere. That is the fact which is given to us by our scientific advisers and the best advisers we can find. The position is clear. The Government disapprove of tests in the atmosphere, and this has been made abundantly clear to the French.

Mr. Dalyell: If the right hon. Gentleman is so certain that his scientific advisers are right and that there is no radiological hazard, why not offer the French the opportunity to carry out the tests off the coast of Berwick?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Because France is an independent country which can take its own decisions.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the undoubted opposition of both the Australians and the New Zealanders to these tests in the atmosphere, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be possible to offer the French facilities for underground tests, if there are such things—as indeed there are—so that their tests can be transferred from the atmosphere to underground where the hazards are much less?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is not for us. It may be for the United States, but not for Britain.

Mr. Shore: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a serious matter because it affects our relations with both Australia and New Zealand, apart from the intrinsic importance of maintaining the test ban treaty. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the case that he has sought to raise the matter and put it on the agenda for the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Europe and has been refused permission to raise it there or, alternatively, that he is so complacent about this that he does not think it is of sufficient intrinsic importance and that it it does not constitute a real danger to the atmosphere?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is no complacency here. This is a matter for the French Government to decide. We make our representations, and Australia and New Zealand, which are independent Commonwealth countries, make theirs. My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is that it may be that the New Zealanders will send a ship into the area. That is their decision. They are an independent country. We make our position clear and also the position held by the occupants of our dependent territories to the French

Government. They have to make up their own mind.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he was informed and approved of the recent visit of the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs to Belfast; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Dr. Fitz-Gerald visited Northern Ireland in a private capacity on 25th April. I understand that the purpose of the visit was to fulfil a long-standing engagement to meet certain members of the Protestant community, and that he took the opportunity of meeting representatives of the Catholic community as well. We were given advance notice of his intentions, and no objections were made.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Acknowledging the high qualities of Dr. Garret FitzGerald and agreeing that Irish Ministers are always to be welcomed in the United Kingdom, may I ask why, if this was a private visit, it was abused in order to level strictures against the conduct of Her Majesty's forces? What assurance has my right hon. Friend obtained that there will be no repetition of such intrusion on United Kingdom sovereignty?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The more exchanges there are between North and South, the better it is for everybody if they are conducted with discretion, and I am sure that Dr. FitzGerald conducted himself with every possible discretion in this matter. I cannot answer for what I consider to be unjustifiable, alarmist and misleading reports that have appeared in some newspapers.

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL

3.32 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make hare coursing matches illegal.
According to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), whose researches are always thorough, hare coursing was introduced into Britain by the Phoenicians some 2,500 years ago. This was apparently just one of their bloodthirsty habits copied by our ancestors, and over the years we have managed to get rid of most of these practices. However, the disgusting and horrible practice of coursing hares remains with us in spite of repeated attempts to abolish it. Even when circumstances have been most propitious, Bills to abolish live hare coursing have been accident-prone.
As far back as 1926 such a Bill, which had survived Second Reading and all other stages, went down on Third Reading. More recently a Bill introduced in 1967 under the Ten-Minute procedure by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and given time for Second Reading by the then Government, was inadvertently talked out on Second Reading. In 1970, the Labour Government, determined to end the barbarous practice of hare coursing, introduced a Bill of their own, but this fell due to the intervention of the General Election.
During this Parliament my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) introduced in the 1971–72 Session a Bill to make hare coursing matches illegal and he obtained a Second Reading debate on 4th February 1972. His zeal took him to a hare coursing match to see what was going on. I am sorry to say that he nearly suffered the same fate as some of the hares since some of the atavistic supporters of this so-called sport set upon him and nearly pulled him apart. His Bill, too, was talked out amidst uproar.
The most recent attempt to end this blood sport was made in another place on 2nd May 1972 when Lady Bacon

introduced a Bill to make hare coursing matches illegal. During the debate quaint ideas were expressed by opponents on the subject of pain and suffering and in the final analysis the blood sport lobby again won the day by defeating the Bill by 115 votes to 71.
However, in spite of these disappointing set backs, those of us in this House who are opposed to this vile practice are determined to keep the issue before the public and to continue to fight to get the so-called sport abolished. We will not be silenced and we will not cease our efforts until victory has been achieved. That is why I am asking for leave to introduce the Bill today. It has overwhelming support outside this House, if not inside it, although many hon. Members have approached me asking to be associated with the Bill. Because of the limitation of numbers, not all who have approached me have been able to be accommodated as sponsors.
There is insufficient time to give a detailed description of what hare coursing entails, but, simply put, there are two large greyhounds matched against each other chasing a very small hare. The chances are that one in every two or three hares will be caught and killed, some of them in a most horrible and excruciatingly painful way. Even supporters of the sport do not claim there is any pest control element and obviously the blood lust is paramount in their minds. Animal organisations have collected much detailed information about the sport and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which unlike the League Against Cruel Sports is not entirely against blood sports, has sent inspectors to coursing matches and has made its reports available.
There are many of them, and to read them is a sickening experience. I have time to quote from only two. The first deals with the fate of the hare. It is the most recent report, dated 11th February 1972. It reads:
Of the 16 hares killed one of them took approximately two minutes to die and featured in a tug of war between two dogs.
That is not a sport, it is torture of entirely innocent creatures in order to satisfy the blood lust of certain kinds of human beings.
The other report from which I want to quote concerns the effect on the dogs. The quotation comes from the report of the RSPCA Inspector No. 102 who was at Northampton on 3rd December 1969. He reported:
 The surface area coursed over was terrible —the land in the district is very stoney—many dogs—injured—cut paws, broken toes, dislocated toes.
So the sport involves cruelty not only to hares but to man's best friend as well.
There are those who would have us believe that animals do not feel pain in the same way as human beings—that the scream of the hare as it is chased and perhaps pulled between two dogs is nothing to do with the pain and terror. I do not believe it. Nor do most animal-loving Britons, who feel only horror and disgust at this appalling blood sport which is still with us. All too often the supporters of hare coursing and other vile blood sports are loudest in their condemnation of violence in human society. I do not believe that the two can be divorced. Violence breeds violence and disregard for animal suffering merely blunts reactions to violence towards human beings. We want an end to violence and we must abhor it in all its forms. I hope the House will make a start today by permitting the introduction of my Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Stoddart, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. William Price, Mr. Rafton Pounder, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. J. D. Concannon, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Kenneth Lomas, Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot, Mr. Joseph Ashton.

HARE COURSING (ABOLITION)

Bill to make hare coursing matches illegal, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 22nd June and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

Orders of the Day — WATER BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Speaker: Before we continue consideration of the Water Bill, I remind the House that, as hon. Members may have already noticed, it has not been possible to reprint the Notice Paper of amendments to the Bill. Therefore, we shall have to work from yesterday's Notice Paper. Adequate stocks are available in Xerox form in the Vote Office.
Notice was given of two further amendments to the Bill yesterday in the name of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and these are available on a separate paper. Both amendments are to earlier parts of the Bill whose consideration was completed yesterday, and they are, therefore, not capable of selection

Clause 27

CHARGES SCHEMES

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Charles Simeons: I beg to move amendment No. 73 in page 30, line 14, at end insert:
' and in framing a Charging Scheme a Regional Water Authority shall have regard to any representations that might be made to it by any person appearing to the Regional Water Authority to be interested in any such Charging Scheme regarding any significant variations of local circumstances'.
This is the beginning of the part of the Bill which deals with charges. I shall, with permission, take a little time in looking at the background. Unless we consider the background it is difficult to see the focal object of the amendment. The Bill deals with administration. That is administration of a technical nature and not, as perhaps has been apparent from debate to date, solely an extension of local government. Basically it has nothing to do with local government.
Water is more vital than gas or electricity. They are alternatives. We can do without them for considerable periods but we cannot do without water. The hazards of gas and electricity are obvious to most people. The potential hazards


of water should be causing the greatest concern. I shall refer to the cumulative effects which perhaps in their simple form can be observed when the radiation content of water is measured, and the cumulative effect to the fishes of the water which has been passing through them. It is found that, for example, the measurement of strontium 90 is very much greater in the fishes than in the environment.
We are paying for a service which provides a supply. It must be adequately safeguarded to protect us from known or unknown hazards. One of the ways in which that can be done and, of course, the way in which we pay for the supply, is by obtaining cash from three different groups of people who in the ultimate are all the same. We obtain cash from householders, from taxpayers and from customers.
Charges can be levied on water supplied, on water discharged or on the subsequent treatment of water that has been discharged. Charges can also provide a brake on consumption. If we consider the effect of such a brake on the groups which I have mentioned, I believe that the small householder would be affected negligibly. We must consider the amount which he is paying. Of course, we have no means of telling how much he consumes. It is the general belief of those in the water industry that he is probably being overcharged if he has a small house with few taps and is levied on a rateable value. But if we consider the effects of charges on consumption we find that they are negligible.
Perhaps I may illustrate that point by suggesting that if the two Front Benches agreed not to wash for a week, not to have a bath for a week and to find means of attending to their daily needs which involved no flushing of water, the amount that would be saved after that week would not purchase a packet of cigarettes. Therefore, the braking effect, by so charging a domestic householder of the type which I have mentioned, is negligible.
If we consider a slightly larger type of house which has a garage tap and a tap used for watering the garden, the pattern is quite different. Such a householder pays a fixed charge. In all probability he is underpaying for the water which he consumes. The taxpayer is totally eliminated because his rôole as a taxpayer must

be either as a householder or as a purchaser of goods.
We must now consider industry's rôole. Of course, there could be a control by charges on the amount that industry extracts. There could also be a charge on the amount which is discharged. That would restrict extraction. Further, there could be a charge on the cost of treatment if water standards are not acceptable. That is immensely important so long as it is used properly. That will in many instances result in the conservation of water. If the charges are balanced correctly, industry will have to decide whether to put in its own treatment plants and whether to recycle.
Great savings can accrue once people become conscious of the amount of water which they are using because they have to pay for its supply and for its discharge. I know of that from my personal experience. There is, despite what the amendment is aimed at, room for discrimination. That is the virtue of the 10 regional water authorities. Indeed, there should be discrimination as to the rates which are applied within their areas.
The guide should be that clean rivers must remain clean and that dirty rivers must be made cleaner. That should be achieved by rates which permit a competitive position between firms within various areas of the country. What is much more important is that that should be at an international level. That adds up to a temptation for the separate regional water authorities, with their built-in local authority majority, possibly to overtax industry or to make charges which are much higher to industry than to other consumers. Knowing human nature as it is, it is not impossible that that could happen at the time of vital elections.
Many problems result in as much as the Bill repeals Sections 57, 58, 59, 61 and 62 of the Water Resources Act 1963 and Section 40 of the Water Act 1945, and in as much as under the present arrangement with river authorities, where there is a local authority majority, it is well known that many of the problems result from the fact that there are no votes in sewerage.
A situation might arise where discrimination took place. I am only


visualising the possibility. I am not saying that it will happen. However, every group should have some form of safeguard. I understand that that has gone with the repeal of the Acts which I have mentioned, or parts of those Acts.
Every group should have a safeguard because the only alternative, so I am informed, is to go to law. That is enormously expensive. If industry has to go to law it will put up the price of its goods. If industry is charged disproportionately, instead of an immediate increase in the cost of water becoming apparent to the elector there will be a price added to the cost of goods, despite what my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment said—that polluters must pay for their pollution. That would be the equivalent of 4p on a packet of crisps. That factor cannot be avoided in the ultimate. Disproportionate charging will result in an increase in the price of goods.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider that matter and tell us what safeguards there will be either for individuals who feeel that they are being overcharged or for industry if it feels that it is being overcharged.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): The House is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) for his analysis of the possible charging schemes and methods of charging which could be adopted by regional water authorities. He desires by the amendment that water authorities when preparing charging schemes should have regard to representations made by people with interests about
… significant variations of local circumstances ".
My hon. Friend gave at least a partial reason for asking for representations of that sort to be recognised formally when he asked what other form of appeal there should be for a consumer who was dissatisfied.
The purpose of the amendment is to oblige the water authorities to take into account
 "…significant variations of local circumstances 
within their area when framing their charges. I sympathise with the motive, which is to enable consumers who may

feel that the circumstances in their area should be taken into account in fixing the water service charges levied on them to bring them to the formal notice of the water authorities. But the amendment does not appear to be necessary to achieve that result.
There is no doubt that charging schemes of water authorities will be both long term and short term. I imagine that the authorities will make clear the distinction between the two. But the general framework of the schemes will obviously cover a number of years, and while the determination is that the non-domestic use of potable water should be charged by volume, domestic use, initially at least, will have to continue as a charge by water rate. My hon. Friend has distinguished between supply and discharge and treatment for industry, and no doubt rates will be worked out for them. It is intended that guidance on the general charging principles should be given to the authorities, but only after consultation between the Government, the National Water Council and the regional water authorities themselves, backed up, if necessary, by ministerial directions under Clause 26(3) or Clause 27(3).
It is intended that such guidance should be the subject of wider consultation with interested bodies, and it is at that stage that the representations which my hon. Friend contemplates should be made. I say "at that stage" in dealing with longer-term proposals in the schemes because the short-term proposals —the standard unit charges for measured supply, the water sewerage charge based on annual values and so on—may be varied, as indeed water rates and charges and general rates are varied at the present time and varied annually. But in the nature of things the timetable of the annual fixing of charges and the printing and issue of bills will not permit protracted consultations about the process.
But the task will, of course, be one of the most important falling to the authorities, and it is intended that the considerations leading up to the fixing of all the levels of charges should be fully publicised. But to place on top of that an obligation to hear formal representations would be so obstructive to the annual working out of the charges as to make it extremely difficult for regional water authorities to carry out their duty.


The extent to which variations in the circumstances may justifiably be taken into account will, of course, be the subject of national guidance from the National Water Council from time to time.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point that representations should be received, and received if necessary in some formal manner. But I would not wish to tie that to the fixing of the rate annually. I imagine that the water authorities will be continually receiving representations and will work them into their charging schemes as they may see fit. My hon. Friend said that the Bill deals with matters of a technical nature. It deals with the provision of a service on a commercial basis, and to that extent we seek not to bind the authorities with unnecessary statutory obligations but merely to lay down general guide lines and general rules which appear in Clauses 26 and 27. My hon. Friend's desires will be realised. The object of the amendment will be achieved—but not by placing any statutory obligation on the authorities.

Mr. Simeons: In view of that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28

METERS

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 74, in page 30, line 30, after ' premises ', insert ' other than domestic premises'.
We have discussed many clauses and amendments of vital significance to local authorities or to river boards or to fishermen, or to various other interests. This clause is of direct concern to every consumer of water—to every householder in the British Isles. Subsection (1) is the most retrograde part of the whole Bill.
The Government seek by subsection (1) to introduce the principle of metering by volume to domestic consumers in the same way as there is metering by volume to industrial and some commercial consumers. It may be argued that it is fair and proper that water should be treated like any other commodity—like, for

example, coal, gas and electricity—and that one should pay for one's water in accordance with what one consumes, regardless of one's circumstances, of one's means, of one's necessity, of the size of one's family.
That concept is totally foreign and alien not only to the Opposition's view but to the traditions of the country. Our Victorian forefathers, even in an age where everything had to be charged and paid for, treated water as something which it was the right of the public to use according to need.
Of course the provision and supply of water has to be paid for. But it is paid for at present by domestic consumers on the much fairer basis of a water rate, which does not take into account the amount of water consumed or the need of the particular house but spreads the cost of water consumption over the community as a whole. That has been in existence for 100 years. It is something we think of as part of the tradition in Britain—that water should be supplied to people in accordance with their need and not in accordance with their means.
4.0 p.m.
Why should water be treated on a financial basis in the way the Government propose? From a public health point of view the step which the Government are taking is extremely grave. Water is used not only for drinking but for flushing toilets, for cleaning and for washing in domestic premises. A charge for water such as the Government would allow the water boards to make would be a tax on cleanliness, a tax on public health.
In Committee on the Bill someone said that this clause would condition the number of times a person goes to the toilet. It cannot condition that, but it can condition the number of times that a toilet is flushed. That is the level to which the Government have brought us by introducing a charge on the consumption of water.

Mr. Simeons: Would not the hon. Member accept that even if everyone in this Chamber refrained for a week— Heaven help that they should—from using water for washing, the saving in cost would be so small that one could do hardly anything with the money saved? Such non-use of water would have an


effect only in larger premises, and they are already metered.

Mr. Oakes: I shall deal with that aspect but at the moment I am dealing with the householder in an ordinary house where water is used for drinking, for making tea, for washing, for baths and for cleaning the house—the ordinary use of water in households. Although it may not be known to the general public, it is proposed by Clause 28 that the regional water boards, when the Act becomes effective or at such time as they may determine, should introduce in their areas meters in domestic houses.
The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) spoke about the more abnormal use of water. The Government could have dealt with that without a general metering charge. I accept that where water is used in domestic premises for what one may consider as non-domestic purposes—for example, for a swimming bath—there should be some metering of the water. We would not disagree about that, but very few households in this country have swimming baths. In fact, too few have ordinary baths. The Government could bring in an amendment to charge for water going into swimming baths or for water used for garden purposes. We would not object to that. But we object to the use of that as an excuse for a blanket charge for water in ordinary domestic premises.
Another aspect which I am sure the Government have considered is the enormous cost of the scheme they are proposing. There have been various estimates, running into millions of pounds, of introducing water meters into domestic premises. That would be on capital account alone. The cost of introducing meters, which would have to be paid by the householders, would itself be astronomical. In addition, there would be the revenue cost of all the water inspectors going round to read the meters and then the computing of bills, not on the comparatively simple basis of the present water rate but according to a consumption basis.
I wonder what is to happen to the household which does not pay its water bill when charged in this way. Could the Government or the water authority cheerfully cut off the water supply as some authorities at present cut off elec-

tricity or gas supplies? Have the Government thought of the public health hazard which would result from such a step? These are all difficulties which can be envisaged in treating water as a commodity in the way in which commodities bought over the counter in a shop are treated.

Mr. Arthur Jones: What would be the attitude of the hon. Member if the metering of supplies actually meant that the cost of water to a domestic consumer should go down?

Mr. Oakes: I can envisage that to certain domestic consumers this might lead to the cost going down. Their consumption is small because of their needs. But to the family with four, five or six children with napkins to wash and all the problems of a household, I think the cost would go up. It would go down for some people who perhaps could afford the cost better than the family with a number of children. I still say that our present system of a water rate spreading the burden over the whole community is a far better and fairer system of charging than one with the minor advantages that might be achieved by a small section of the community paying a smaller charge because their consumption is less.
When dealing with water we are not dealing with a commodity which—apart from swimming baths and things of that sort—is a luxury. We are dealing with a basic, essential necessity of life. The Government are trying to bring in a metering charge for a basic, essential factor of life. We are totally opposed to the concept of metering being introduced in this way into private houses.
Is there such a waste of water resources in private houses as to make metering essential? Consumption of potable water in domestic premises compared with the enormous consumption for industrial purposes, is almost negligible. Consideraing the amount of water wasted at present for all sorts of reasons, metering would not be an answer. There is wastage because of burst pipes or defective washers on taps. Surely the Government should introduce a free plumbing service by which those washers could be replaced to conserve water rather than embarking on the enormously costly and unfair procedure of introducing meters into private houses.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Will the hon. Member say what he means by "a free service "? Who would pay?

Mr. Oakes: The water authority would pay. When I say "a free service" I mean that if someone has a leaking tap it could be to the advantage of the regional water authority, just as it is for many local authorities today, to send someone to mend that tap rather than having the deterrent for the consumer of receiving a bill for mending the tap. If that is the Government's intention, that would be far more economical than introducing metering and far fairer to the poorer-paid family, those people who have no choice but to use water.
We do not approve, either, of the way in which the Government have done this. The Under-Secretary was cautious in a recent speech about metering, because he knew what the effect in the country would be of the introduction of a commercial basis for an essential need. He said that meters would not be automatically introduced into every home but that certain water authorities would have the power to introduce them, that it was their decision. What he meant was, "We do not have the guts to do this. We will leave it, not to democratically elected councils, but to regional boards, the chairmen of which will be appointed by the Secretary of State." The people will have no say in this revolutionary change.
We have no objection to metering of the abnormal needs of commercial or industrial premises or of swimming baths and other unusual uses in domestic premises. We are concerned about the tens of millions of ordinary homes in which, under Clause 28, un-elected water authorities will be able to install meters. We are concerned about the cost of metering and of servicing and are very much concerned about public health. Most of all, we are concerned about the effect of this on the pockets of ordinary people.
The charge for water will be imposed not simply for water, as at present. Clause 28(1) means that it will be a charge for sewerage as well. Whatever passes through the meter will be registered as water. Just as water has been paid for by a water rate, so

sewerage has always been accepted as a public responsibility of local authorities, aided by the Government through the rate support grant. In the early hours of this morning, the dead hour when there is no reporting, we heard that the Government intends that the regional water authorities should, in the Government's classic phrase, "stand on their own feet"—which in fact means standing on the feet of the consumer, especially the domestic consumer. Clause 28 also provides that £100 million in grant will be saved by the Government but put on to the shoulders of the domestic consumer. The meter will deal not only with water but also with sewerage.
4.15 p.m.
This is not a decision which should be left to the undemocratic regional water authorities. This elected House must make up its mind on so vital a change in our attitude—whether water should be treated as an essential need or like any other commodity.
I would ask hon. Members on both sides who care about public health as well as the situation of the ordinary consumer to support the admendment and thereby avoid this attempt to put the clock back in public health over 100 years.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and I remind the House that Clause 25 puts a responsibility on regional water authorities to make a return on their notional assets In other words, not only is the £100 million being taken from grants towards sewerage, but the Minister will be able to make the water authorities show a profit.
No doubt the method of metering will be used possibly as a threat or in marginal circumstances at first and may be, as the notes on the clause suggest, gradually extended over the years to produce those notional profits. This will be done at the householder's expense.
My hon. Friend missed out an important part of society who use a good deal of water—the invalids, the sick and children. Imagine a housewife with an elderly, possibly incontinent,


relative and many children. The amount saved by economy may be only 4p or the price of a packet of crisps, but we all know what women do when they are trying to save. They will be nagging the children and they will think twice about washing the kitchen floor—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary laughts at this. He thinks that I am talking moonshine. He talks moonshine about metering. He seems to think that this will not worry many housewives. He and the Government are as unrealistic about this matter as about so many others.

Mr. Simeons: Why is it wrong to meter water but right to measure milk? Both are vital.

Mr. Spearing: That may be, but the point about water—I do not want to go into a long lecture, because time is limited —is that it is far more important to public health and the basic proper living of people than anything, including food.
If the hon. Member does not understand the basic importance of water in public health and in community life in this country, he should read a few history books of the nineteenth century. The total organisation of water in Britain is founded on a series of Public Health Acts of the last century. It is a far different system from that on the Continent, where they also meter water more extensively. Indeed, the fittings and the taps to which my hon. Friend referred are of a very high standard in this country and are kept to a very high standard because if there is a leak the loss goes to the water undertaking and not to the consumer.
The document which we have from the Government on this matter in default of a proper White Paper says that they are engaged in experiments to see how far metering would be helpful. They go on to say in their notes on clauses that there may possibly be a meter not to charge by volume but to give a charge on minimum consumption. This requires reading and it will require extra billing. At the moment the water rate is collected in many places with the ordinary rates. Under the new organisation this will need new machinery.
The Government have never said why they have put this into the Bill. The British Water Association has published a memorandum on metering and has said

that studies show—and of course there has been a study in Malvern—that
… there was little difference between meter charges and charges based on net annual value. The minimum charge for metered supplies to domestic premises would have to be set at a figure which would allow an adequate supply of water to meet normal health requirements, so that a large number of meters would be unproductive, because the minimum would be unlikely to be exceeded.
I know the hon. Gentleman says that he is not definitely going to insist that water authorities do this, but the fact that there is a provision in the Bill for domestic premises is a very dangerous and bad precedent. If he did not mean it seriously, if it was nothing more than moonshine, as he tried to make out in a speech not long ago, this part of the clause would not be there.
I refer in even stronger terms to the lack of information from the Government on this subject. We dealt with this briefly in Committee and, as reported in column 980 of the Standing Committee report, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the present Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, no less, chaired a sub-committee on water charges in 1963 which reaffirmed the retention of a system of charging related to net annual value although they were aware that the system concerned was not ideal.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman at that meeting of the Committee what had happened since then to change the Secretary of State's mind. At the end of a subsequent debate the Minister for Local Government and Development said that he would provide a letter which he would send to me, with copies to the members of the Committee, which would set out the reasons. He said that he would
… write to the hon. Gentleman setting out the case for this clause
—that is the metering clause—
and provide the rest of the Committee with a copy of the letter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 12th April 1973; c. 995.]
I do not recall having received that letter and I have checked with some of my hon. Friends who tell me they have not received it either. Not only have we not had a White Paper on the Bill, not only has the country as a whole not been properly informed about this, but even hon. Members who were members of the Committee have not received the


letter they were promised. I absolve the right hon. Gentleman from any deliberate intent—I know him too well to think that he intended that—but there appears to have been a slip-up in the machinery. I think it is a very good example of how bad things are in terms of information to the public and the accountability of Parliament that we come to the Report stage in the House when information of this sort is not available.
I raised this point on a Welsh matter yesterday, and I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Welsh Office, is here. I was not concerned with the Welsh issue but with the question of information to the public, and I am glad he takes that point.

Mr. Graham Page: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had kept up to date with all the letters I had promised to write. I gave a rather large number of undertakings during the Committee stage. I did not know that I had slipped up, and I apologise sincerely.

Mr. Spearing: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As I said, I knew his intention and I am perfectly well aware that he was very anxious to do this. I do not think it is necessarily his fault. I would not expect him to read all the columns afterwards. But I think this is symptomatic of the difficulties in which perhaps some of those who advised him on the Bill have put the House and the country.
The speech made by the Undersecretary on 6th March was also symptomatic. The Press notice read:
Water metering will not become compulsory—assures Eldon Griffiths.
Suggestions that water metering to domestic households will be made compulsory on 1st April 1974 are complete moonshine, said Eldon Griffiths, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of the Environment in London today.
It is easy to imagine the impression that people will get from that. It is an official Press statement from the Department of the Environment. But nobody had suggested that it would become compulsory on 1st April 1974. That is another way in which the Minister sometimes gets things wrong, and we misunderstand him on too many occasions, I fear.
However, it is quite clear that the power is there for a regional water authority to make it compulsory. Far from being moonshine, I fear this is something which is very real indeed. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman used this technique at that time because I believe that, combined with the lack of information from the Government on this subject, it has caused great discomfort and will cause great discomfort to them in the future and indeed cast doubt on the probity of Government, politicians and democratic institutions as a whole.

Mr. Ronald Brown: Is that point not even more realistic when it is considered that the Government have reserved the power to appoint the chairmen, so that the first question to be put to any potential chairman is whether he agrees with having domestic water metered?

Mr. Spearing: We were discussing that very question only last night. I think it is very unlikely that any Minister would appoint a chairman of a regional water authority knowing that he was against the policy of domestic metering. It could be that he would do so, but this whole question of the independence of regional water authority chairmen is brought into focus by this very important issue. Even if the public are not interested in sewerage and water as a whole, they are, I am glad to say, interested in water metering because this is something they will have to pay for out of their own pockets.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydvil): Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) and the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), would he not also accept that there is an additional point concerning cases in which these regional water authorities are against water metering but the chairmen support it? In this way discord could arise in a very important area of public policy.

Mr. Spearing: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Methyr Tydvil is completely right. I am horrified to contemplate the situation in a large regional water authority—perhaps Severn-Trent— where the majority of members say one thing and the chairman another, and the


Secretary of State backs the chairman, it is easy to imagine the effect on the efficiency of the organisation in that huge area. That is a very good example of why the administration of this Bill will cause great difficulty.
This is a very important clause. The Government have not provided their case for having it in the Bill and that is the very reason why the right hon. Gentleman courteously said that he would send me a letter giving the reasons. That was a tacit admission that a case had not been properly made out. As he admitted today, that case has still to be made. That is one of the reasons why I shall vote in the Lobby, and I hope that many other hon. Members will do so, too.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) is right in saying that a plentiful supply of water, including water for domestic use, is vital to public health, but I am sure he would agree that it is equally vital, and perhaps for the very reasons he has given, that water should not be wasted.
We are in the early days of experiment and thought on the subject of metering, especially metering for domestic purposes. If experiment and thoughts show that water would be saved in substantial quantities by its being metered for domestic purposes, it would be foolish to suggest to the Government that they should come back at a later stage and obtain the power to meter, when there is this obviously suitable opportunity of taking that power now.
I was very surprised that the Opposition Front Bench argued that provision for the metering of water for domestic purposes should be excluded from the clause. If, by some misfortune, they found themselves in power after some years, when experiment and thought on the matter had gone further, I am sure that they would greatly regret not having the power if it were found necessary to use it.
Consumption of water per head has increased every year since records were first kept, and every year this century the population has increased. Even if we manage to stabilise the population, it will increase by another 5 million to 10 million above its present level by about the end

of the century. In those circumstances, as it will not be easy to secure the increased water supplies both for further increased consumption per head and for a much larger population, the exclusion of the possibility of metering domestic supplies at this stage would be utterly wrong.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, without labouring the point too much, will advise the House to reject the amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Rowlands: In some ways the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and I see the matter through different political eyes and through different personal eyes. We are in different stages of our life. I am still in the nappy-washing stage, as a young father with young children.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke about wasting water. I would not consider it wasted in the average young family household, even when occasionally I see my son running the taps and dabbling his hands in the water. Young parents sometimes have to nag their children about putting out the lights and so on. I should hate to have to nag children on the use to which they are putting such a simple resource as water.
The hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) has made the point that the savings achieved by the use of petty metering techniques in domestic households are likely to be small in proportion compared with the savings in industry or what can be achieved by the reuse of water or other techniques.

Mr. Simeons: The point I was making was that in monetary terms the saving was negligible, but in gallonage it was quite high.

Mr. Rowlands: Both sides will agree that all the evidence points to the fact that great savings of water can be made in other ways, and that metering will make a marginal contribution.
We must take into account a whole variety of family and domestic problems that could arise if we put a higher premium on the use of water. The Minister said yesterday that he believed in charges, not taxation. That is the thin end of the wedge, as the clause is. The Government do not openly admit that they want


meters, but they want to hedge their bets. They realise that metering is unpopular, but the whole philosophy of charging the consumer, irrespective of income and need, pushes them along the path towards water meters. The House would be misled if the Government did not admit that the clause is pushing open the door, and that eventually Government policy will be that water meters should be in every household. That is why we oppose the clause in principle, not because we expect metering to begin in April 1974.
We have seen government by Press release from the Under-Secretary. The Press office of his Department must be working full-time for the hon. Gentleman on these issues. He travels the country explaining the position. Metering may not begin in April 1974, but the Government intend to introduce the principle of water meters and switch the burden of the cost of water from the community as a whole to the individual consumer, irrespective of income and need.
Does this mean that we shall have the equivalent of rent rebates on metered water charges? [Interruption.] It is not silly. If the householder is charged, the Government will presumably then say "Some householders cannot afford to pay, so they will have to be means-tested to have a rebate." That is what happens once the Government start along the path towards switching the burden of the cost of water supplies to the individual family and household from the community as a whole, in the form of direct charges. We should oppose that, not because we think—

Mr. Ronald Brown: The next stage is the police State, which we had in the war, when the Government did not put in meters but forbade people to have more than four inches of water in the bath. They are now trying to do the same thing by meter, but will have to fall back on the police State.

Mr. Rowlands: I am in the nappy-washing stage. I was not born at the time of which my hon. Friend speaks, but I am grateful for his historical references.
We suffer from gas boards that cannot send out correct gas bills. Is the same thing to happen with water? Shall

we have inspectors and water meter readers?
There is a principle involved in the clause, besides the practical problems. The supply of water to households and families is a part of our local public health and social services, and, therefore, should be kept as cheap as possible. Whatever savings there might be for some people, usually single persons, the concept of water meters will herald an era of more expensive water for the household and family. That is why the Opposition will divide the House on the matter.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I apologise for contributing to the debate now, when I have not been conspicuous by my dutiful attendance on other occasions during the consideration of the Bill. I have received many representations on the subject from different quarters and felt that I should try to take part in the debate.
I do not oppose the giving of a permissive power to meter water supplies to all types of premises, and therefore I oppose the amendment. My approach is slightly different from that of certain other hon. Members. To give a power to meter water supplies is not precisely the same as to make a direction that in all circumstances supplies should be metered. It would be helpful—I make this concession to what was said by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing)—if the Government could be more specific and give greater clarity on precisely what is in their mind in seeking to include the power in the Bill. [Interruption.] It is fair to say that previous statements from the Government Front Bench have not been specific to the last degree.
My enthusiasm for metering varies according to the circumstances we are considering. It is accepted that almost all supplies to industrial premises are metered. There is provision for metering commercial premises, and the clause would allow that provision to be widened.
A commercial user in my constituency has seen his water rates rise from £4·10 per annum in 1964 to £88·69 in 1972. That was without any increase in water usage. While the cost of water has risen 47 per cent. the charges have risen by 2,100 per cent. I can understand the anger felt by commercial users about the


present system for charging for water. An extension in metering for them is wholly justified. It is the same sort of considering which affects the minds of domestic users.
I look at this first on the basis of what sort of metering is proposed for domestic users. Is it to be metering without the option or are we giving a power to the new water authorities so that they may be able to respond to demands from users to have their supplies metered? There is a considerable distinction between compulsory metering and a person's right to have his water metered. I do not know with whom Labour hon. Members mingle but I have found that many people are totally incensed by the present method of charging for their water supplies. They get pretty hot under the collar about the ordinary system of general rating. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite had not heard of that.
When, in addition, they find that the charges for water are related to the rateable value of their premises and they are suddenly facing a severe increase in water charges which has nothing to do with consumption they get even more angry. If hon. Gentlemen have not encountered that point of view I will not accuse them of being in dereliction of their duty in failing to meet their constituents. All I will say is that I am slightly surprised that they have not met this.

Mr. Spearing: What the hon. Gentleman forgets is that while the water race is tied to reateable value, by and large water charges are relatively small so that the increase in cash terms is also relatively small.

Mr. Haselburst: I understand that, but that sweetly reasonable explanation is not always greeted with unalloyed pleasure by the people to whom it is given. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that there is great resentment about this, I am surprised.
Can my hon. Friend say whether it is intended that a choice should be given to the consumer as to how the charge shall be levied? Does the case for domestic metering rest entirely upon the amount of water that can be conserved, and must it therefore be a universal practice? It would be interesting to know whether the Government have investigated the potential saving of water through the introduc-

tion of metering in domestic premises and whether they can say how these savings compare with savings in other directions, for example as a result of research on desalination processes.
While I am curious to know the answer to these questions—and we need to know the answers—when we come to the arguments advanced by the Opposition we can well ask what evidence they have for some of their propositions. There is the idea that this is hitting at large families or at people generally and that there is a risk to public hygiene because people will not wash regularly. These are theories that may be introduced in some debating society. What clear, quantifiable evidence is there that this is a danger following upon the permissive powers in this Bill? Are not their statements based upon some homespun philosophy, as we see the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) toiling over the nappies in the bath? Is this based on what they think may happen or can they say that there is a measureable amount of danger to health standards?
4.45 p.m.
If hon. Gentlemen are representing the fears that exist in the minds of some of their constituents they ought to measure them against the feelings of other constituents who are just as numerous, if not more so, and who are incensed about the present method of charging. These people are urging their representatives to change the system in some way. I do not accept the argument of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil that we should oppose this because it is opening the door to action by future Governments. I cannot see any great harm in giving a permissive power, particularly if it is to enable citizens to have a wider choice. Any Government can come forward and take this step in future if they want to. I do not understand the hon. Member's argument about the thin end of the wedge. It is not a very strong one for a vote on the principle.
I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend is undertaking a study into the system of charging, in conjunction with the National Water Council. I hope that when advice is given it will be in the attempt to provide a choice. I hope that the individual water authorities will not be told that they must


go ahead with a compulsory system of metering but that this might be conceded as a right of the consumer. That is my approach, and if this is at the kernel of the Government's intention in introducing the clause, I do not see why there should be so much steam raised against it. I am certainly prepared to support the Government.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: When the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) moved the amendment he was good enough to tell us that the Government's action was the most retrograde step taken—I am not sure whether he said this century but certainly for a considerable time. He waxed eloquent and indignant, and it was obvious that his party had made this a set piece. This was the moment when it would demonstrate to the public how defective the Bill is and how it is the champion of the long-suffering public.
I had expected to see the Labour benches packed when the hon. Gentleman rose to deliver this tirade which would destroy the Government's case. There was, however, but a thin cheer from two of his hon. Friends. I was reminded of the actor who peered out from behind the stage curtains at the theatre and discovered that there were only two people present. The producer comforted him by saying that it was a splendid audience—both of them were chatty. That was the situation in which the hon. Gentleman found himself when he delivered this attack designed to make the flesh of the public creep, saying that somehow or other the metering of water was to be forced upon the public by a Government seeking to finance the whole of the water industry at the cost of the nappy-washing of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands).
This is a total travesty of the truth. I could not think of a better phrase than that quoted by the hon. Member from an earlier speech of mine when I said that the Opposition's case was sheer moonshine. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton)—who understand these matters—has said, we are at a very early stage. A good deal of thought must be given to this and more

experience gained before final decisions are taken.
We give the regional water authorities —which will be powerful statutory bodies with elected local authority majorities—a broad power to charge. There is no reason to suppose that they will use their discretionary and permissive power irresponsibly. They will be able to make charges according to the volume of water supplied to or taken away from any premises, whether they be domestic or industrial. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwick (Mr. Haselhurst) that this is a discretionary and permissive power which the regional water authorities themselves must determine in the light of the circumstances within their area.
To answer my hon. Friend's other comment, it would be possible to give the individual consumer the right to opt for metering, but if some individuals only were to opt in that direction inevitably the cost of the installation of metering in one place, and all the con-sequentials, would be extremely high. Such an individual consumer might well find that the capital cost would be hardly worth the gain he might achieve. But I will make sure that the group under my Department that is studying this matter gives consideration to the points which my hon. Friend has raised.
The regional water authorities will have power to make charges for the water that they supply. I was reasonably asked why the Government thought that this discretionary power should be given to them. One reason is that the Central Advisory Water Committee—the statutory body that advises the Government on these matters—concluded that metering was by far the fairest and most effective method of ensuring economy in the use of water. The Central Advisory Water Committee's Sub-Committee on Water Charges reported that this would be the best way of doing it, and its conclusions gain a good deal of support from the grievances, expressed to my Department frequently through hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches, of elderly people living alone who use water only for their modest domestic purposes. These people see little justice in their being obliged to pay the same charge for their water as do the family


of four or five living in the identically valued house next door who use perhaps six or seven times as much water, for the automatic washing machine, the dish washer, the sink waste grinder and the couple of cars which they shampoo regularly. We frequently hear from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches complaints from elderly people who find little justice in the present system of charging.
I come to deal with the specific complaints that have been made in the debate. One suggestion was that metering will enforce economy of water use on the lowly-paid and that this will produce dangers to public health. We have looked into this matter in some detail, and we find that domestic water supplies are metered in most of the rest of Europe and in North America and, for approximately 100 years, have been metered in Malvern, England. There is no evidence from any of those countries, or from Malvern, that public health or personal hygiene are in any way at risk where domestic water supplies are metered.
I say to the hon. Member for Acton that the cost of washing is not so high as to be a risk to public health. The cost of water, even if it were to be charged by volume, is infinitesimally small compared with the cost of heating it before it is used or buying and running a washing machine in which it is processed. There are—this may give some comfort to the hon. Member for Widnes —various methods whereby an entitlement to a basic supply of water for the reasonable demands of a family could be handled through a standing or even a token charge. Quantities in excess of that amount would be charged for by volume. That would provide for the supply of more than sufficient water to meet the reasonable demands of the ordinary family with the metering of excessive amounts which are wasteful to the country as a whole.
The second charge made by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches is that the scope of and the need for economy in domestic consumption are negligible compared with those in industry. That point was made much of by the hon. Member for Widnes with his knowledge of the industries in that area.

But he is not right on the facts. The need for sensible economy in industrial use is acknowledged on all sides. As water consumption is a cost on industry, industrialists for the most part are sensible about it.
On the facts, unmetered consumption, mainly by domestic users, accounts for nearly two-thirds of the total water supplied by public undertakings. Therefore, even a small percentage saving on the future increase in use would be very valuable. The waste of water through leakage, washers and for a variety of reasons in the domestic sector is conventionally taken as approximately 15 per cent. This waste arises from filling a handbasin simply to wash one's hands, using two gallons or more to flush half a pint and from the fact that most of us tend to take our water for granted as something that just appears when we turn on the tap. We have to recognise that water is becoming too expensive to collect, transport, purify and distribute to be wantonly wasted or polluted in the manner to which we are accustomed.
The Bill does not simply require the installation of meters in all domestic premises within a short period of time. The capital cost of doing this would be extremely high. The technical difficulties of retro-fitting meters into the multi-occupation premises of many of our larger cities is probably beyond practical possibility. We are saying that the new regional water authorities, which will be responsible statutory bodies with an elected democratic majority, should themselves be able to determine whether, in the overall interest of their consumers and of the safeguarding of future water supplies it is right to go in for metering. It woud be entirely wrong, when we are passing through the House a major piece of water legislation, not to put into the Bill that discretionary and permissive power against the future in case the regional water authorities should decide that it is wise to use it.
I reject the scaremongering indulged in by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches. I agree with what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire, that we are as yet at an early stage and it is wise to make this provision because otherwise we should not be doing our duty by the


future consumers, many of them yet unborn.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: That was a lamentable explanation by the Under-Secretary of State of the most retrograde proposal in the Bill. I agree with with him that water is a luxury, but it should be available in plentiful supply. The hon. Gentleman argued that increase in capital costs may make it more difficult to collect and transport. I do not see why he should approach this subject in such a mean-minded way. The air we breathe and the water we drink traditionally have been available to our people in plentiful supply, and should remain so. A metering system will bear most heavily on those who should be encouraged to use water. They are the people who can least afford to pay on the basis of the water they use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) was right to say that we should not expect large families to pay because of the amount of water they use. Once that is allowed to happen, we shall have to have regard to their ability to pay—and once people are charged in such a way, if they cannot afford to pay there will have to be some mechanism to allow them to be supplied with water.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the course which might eventually be followed would mean that people would pay a nominal charge for a given amount of water and would pay by volume for any excess. If that sort of philosophy were allowed to play a part in our national life, the total amount of water used would have to be related to the number of children in a family. In other words, there would have to be a rationing system for water. That is what the Under-Secretary of State is now proposing. He is saying that every householder shall be given a certain amount of water as a ration, and that if he has the audacity to use more water he will have to pay for it. I thought that we had got beyond that type of mentality in this House, but apparently that is not so.
The hon. Gentleman tried to make fun of what Opposition Members said about nappies. He will be interested to know the section of the population that uses

most water. By and large, it is the working-class family with children. It may be surprising news to him that working-class people wash and want to keep clean, and to keep their children clean.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman well knows that our average consumption of water is now about 50 gallons per head per day. In 25 years it will be about 100 gallons per day. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we are only half as clean now as we shall be in 25 years' time? The increased use of water is related to increasing standards of life and the use of water for many other basic domestic purposes.

Mr. Howell: That does not follow from the argument. Society as a whole is using more water, and it is the Government's job to see that water is available. The Minister gave us a vivid insight into the sort of family life to which he is accustomed. He instanced the family which used dishwashers, washing machines and waste disposal units, and which was in the habit of shampooing two cars. He appeared to regard that as the average family. A recent survey showed that people in my constituency have the least number of cars per family in the whole of Birmingham. The picture which the hon. Gentleman tried to paint was certainly not related to the average working-class family. All this is Tory theorising. Their philosophy is to make people pay for what they use. We are totally opposed to that philosophy.
I turn to the economic argument, mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). I take the opposite view to that which he put forward. I believe that we should not allow the supply of water to be turned into a completely managerial function. Such a course will give an incentive to management to sell the product that it produces. Our experience has shown that all the emphasis in gas and electricity boards is on selling. If people are appointed and given salaries to manage a commodity, their incentive will be aimed not at saving the commodity but at selling it. A great deal of money is spent in television advertising urging the public to buy electricity and gas because the people, who are involved want to sell them. At present local


authorities have an incentive to obtain the greatest economic use of water, but if the proposals in the Bill were accepted the emphasis would be the other way.
This provision is in the Bill because the Government intend at some time to use it. Tory Members say that they want to alter the traditional pattern to enable people to pay for what they use. Our philosophy is that such a course is regressive, and we oppose it, on the ground that people should have a ready supply of water as of right. We also oppose this proposal because the capital cost will be enormous and will add to the cost of water. The capital cost of installing meters will be colossal, as will the cost of providing people to read the meters. I believe that already far too many meter readers call at houses. The West Midlands Gas Board supplies people with a card

on which they are expected to note their meter readings. They are expected to put the card in the window, so that if the gas meter reader cannot gain access to the house because the people are out at work, he can read the card through the window.

We are opposed to this proposal in principle, and wish to assert the absolute right of the domestic user to a plentiful supply of pure water. It is the Government's job to bring about that situation. This wretched proposal should be drowned at birth, which is what I hope the House will now do to it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 228.

Division No. 116.]
AYES
[5.10 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, Tom
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Harry
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Barnes, Michael
Faulds, Andrew
Kaufman, Gerald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Kelley, Richard


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Russell


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kinnock, Neil


Beaney, Alan
Foot, Michael
Lambie, David


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ford, Ben
Lamborn, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Forrester, John
Lamond, James


Bishop, E. S.
Freeson, Reginald
Latham, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Galpern, Sir Myer
Leadbitter, Ted


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Garrett. W. E.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Booth, Albert
Gilbert, Dr. John
Leonard, Dick


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bradley, Tom
Goldlng, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Gourlay, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Loughlin, Charles


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McBride, Nell


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCartney, Hugh.


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McElhone, Frank. 


Carmichael, Nell
Hamllng, William
McGuire, Michael


Carter, Ray (Birmingh' m, Northfield)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Machin, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hardy, Peter
Mackie, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harper, Joseph
Mackintosh, John P.


Concannon, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maclennan, Robert.


Conlan, Bernard
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hattersley, Roy
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mahon, Simon (Bottle)


Crawshaw, Richard
Heffer, Eric S.
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mardsen, F.


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Horam, John
Marshall, Dr.Edmund


Dalyell, Tam
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mayhew, Christoper


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Huckfieid, Leslie
Meacher, Michael


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) 
Mendelson, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Deaklns, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Milne, Edward


Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Doig, Peter
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Driberg, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Murray, Ronald King


Duffy, A. E P.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Oakes, Gordon


Dunnett, Jack
John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael


Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
O'Malley, Brian




Orme, Stanley
Rose, Paul B.
Tomney, Frank


Oswald, Thomas
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Tope, Graham


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Rowlands, Ted
Tuck, Raphael


Padley, Walter
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Urwin, T. W.


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Varley, Eric G.


Pardoe, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wainwright, Edwin


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Sillars, James
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Pendry, Tom
Silverman, Jullus
Wallace, George


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Skinner, Dennis
Watkins, David


Prescott, John
Small, William
Weitzman, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Spearing, Nigel
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Probert, Arthur
Spriggs, Leslie
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Radice, Giles
Steel, David
Whitehead, Phillip


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Whitlock, William


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Woof, Robert


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Swain, Thomas
Mr. James A. Dun and


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fry, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
MacArthur, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Atkins, Humphrey
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Marten, Nell


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Bell, Ronald
Green, Alan
Maude, Angus


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biffen, John
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Blaker, Peter
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bowden, Andrew
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Bray, Ronald
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Money, Ernle


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Monks, Mrs. Connle


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Haselhurst, Alan
Monro, Hector


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Havers, Sir Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Burden, F. A.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mudd, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Murton, Oscar


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Higgins, Terence L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Chapman, Sydney
Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harnnar


Chataway. Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Noble Rt. Hn. Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip
Normanton, Tom


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Nott, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley


Clegg, Walter
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Hunt, John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Coombs, Derek
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Cordle, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
James, David
Percival, Ian


Costain, A. P.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld,Maj.-Gen.Jack
Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Dixon, Piers
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kimball Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert


Emery, Peter
Kinsey J. R.
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Fell, Anthony
Knox, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lambton, Lord
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fidler, Michael
Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lane, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Merchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fookes Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fortescue, Tim
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rost, Peter


Fowler, Norman
Loveridge, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford &amp; Stone)
Luce, R. N.
St. John-Stevas, Norman







Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Dame Irene


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Warren, Kenneth


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Weatherill, Bernard


Shersby, Michael
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
White, Roger (Grayesend)


Simeons, Charles
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Sinclair, Sir George
Temple, John M.
Wilkinson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Winterton, Nicholas


Soref, Harold
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Spence, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hn Richard


Sproat, lain
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trew, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Younger, Hn. George


Stokes, John
Vickers, Dame Joan



Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Waddington, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sutcliffe, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Tapsell, Peter
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Marcus Fox.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause 30

CONSEQUENTIAL TRANSITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 33, leave out line 10.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 77, 111 to 115 and 118 to 121.

Mr. Graham Page: The amendments concern consequential, transitional and supplementary provisions in the clause, which applies to certain provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 and to Schedule 5, which adapts these provisions for the purposes of the Bill.
The amendments have three main objects. The first is to ensure that the consequential, transitional and supplementary provisions cover all the various bodies affected by the Bill. The second is to introduce into Schedule 5 the convenient terms "transferor body" and "transferee authority". The third is to simplify the Bill for the reader by adding a new Part II of Schedule 5 instead of carrying it over by cross-reference to other statutes.
These are useful tidying up amendments, which will remove certain doubts —particularly a doubt expressed by the Norfolk County Council whether the application of Section 255 of the 1972 Act covers the staff which it and a few other county councils employ to advise district councils on sewerage and sewage disposal. I think that we have cleared up that point sensibly.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 33, leave out line 14 and insert:
' in Part I of Schedule 5 to this Act.
(2) The provisions of Part II of that Schedule, being provisions which reproduce with modifications certain provisions of section 262 of the 1972 Act (local Acts and instruments), shall have effect with respect to local statutory provisions in force immediately before 1st April 1914.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Clause 32

ORDERS, REGULATIONS AND BYELAWS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 33, line 37, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) Part I of Schedule 6 to this Act shall have effect with respect to the making of byelaws by the appropriate Minister or Ministers by virtue of any enactment under which water authorities perform their functions and Part II of that Schedule shall have effect with respect to the making of byelaws by water authorities, other statutory water undertakers and internal drainage boards under any enactment'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 122 to 129.

Mr. Page: This is a drafting amendment, but I should put on record the purpose of this and the other amendments.
Clause 32(3) gives effect to Schedule 6, the procedure relating to the making of byelaws. The purpose of the amendments is to distinguish between Part I of the Schedule, which relates to the making of byelaws by Ministers, and Part II which relates to the making of byelaws by other bodies. The amendments make it clear that Part I is to govern only byelaws made by Ministers under water legislation and not any byelaws they may make under other legislation. They also make clear that Part II


is to govern all byelaws made by water authorities, other statutory water undertakers, and internal drainage boards.
Finally, the amendments replace the reference to the Secretary of State and the Minister by the phrase used elsewhere in the Bill,
the appropriate Minister or Ministers ".

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36

SHORT TITLE, MINOR AMENDMENTS, REPEALS AND EXTENT

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 36, line 38, at end insert:
' (dd) in Schedule 8, the repeals in the Water (Scotland) Act 1967;'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 162.

Mr. Griffiths: These are technical amendments. Amendment No. 162 makes repeals in the Water (Scotland) Act 1967, which are consequential on the repeal by the Bill of Section 127 of the Water Resources 1963. Instead, Section 127 is re-enacted in Clause 7(4) and (5).
Amendment No. 80 adds these repeals in the 1967 Act to the list of provisions in the Bill which apply to Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2

BOUNDARIES OF WATER AUTHORITY AREAS AND AREA AND MAIN RIVER MAPS

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 43, line 22, after ' notice ', insert:
' and of the draft order'.
This amendment concerns paragraph 14(2) of Part III of Schedule 2 regarding the submission of a copy of the draft order to those involved in any changes required by the Minister to the regional water authorities. It is a simple matter and a minor point.

Mr. Graham Page: My hon. Friend says that this is a minor point. However, it is useful. The requirements contained in paragraph 14 were derived from Schedule 5 of the Water Resources Act

1963, which prescribed the procedure for orders altering the boundary of a river authority. There will have been consultations with the authorities concerned before the stage of publishing a notice. In many cases copies of the draft order will be deposited at the offices of an authority for the purpose of public inspection under paragraph 14(1). In cases where that does not apply it would be more convenient for the authority to receive a copy of the draft order automatically than to have to ask for one or, alternatively, to inspect one of the deposited copies. Equally, the sending out of the further copy would not impose a significant extra burden on Government Departments. I therefore advise the House to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

ADMINISTRATION, FINANCE, ETC., OF WATER AUTHORITIES AND THE NATIONAL WATER COUNCIL

Amendment made: No. 82, in page 45, line 2, leave out' members of a water authority ' and insert:
'chairman of a water authority and the other members '.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 47, line 25. after 'authority', insert—
'(a)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 84.

Mr. Griffiths: These amendments will authorise the payment of pensions, and so on, to the chairman of a water authority or of a regional land drainage committee or of a local land drainage committee. This provision parallels the existing arrangements relating to members of the National Water Council.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 84, in page 47, line 29, at end insert:
'and—
(b) if the Ministers with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service so determine in the case of any person who is or has been chairman of a water authority or any such committee, shall pay or make arrangements for the payment of a pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of that person in


accordance with the determination'.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 47, line 36. leave out '115 and' and insert 'to'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 110, in Schedule 4, page 61, line 1, after '10', insert ', 12, 15 '.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Paragraph 12 of Schedule 3 deals with officers of regional water authorities and applies to them certain of the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, including those concerning security, accountability, and the disclosure by officers of their interests in contracts. There seems no good reason why a similar provision should not apply to members of regional water authorities and their officers.
Paragraph 9 of the schedule provides, as in the corresponding provision for local authorities, that a paid officer may not be a member of the authority. It is suggested that the application of Section 116 of the 1972 Act to officers of water authorities is reasonable and desirable. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree.
Amendment No. 110 refers to paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 and applies to members of regional and local land drainage committees a number of provisions in Schedule 3 which apply to members of regional water authorities, dealing with vacation of office, appointment to fill casual vacancies and disqualification for reappointment to membership.
There are several omissions from the paragraphs in Schedule 3 which are applied to the land drainage committees. The first relates to the application to officers of a number of provisions in the Local Government Act 1972 which apply to officers of local authorities. There seems no reason why these provisions should not apply not only to officers of regional water authorities but to any officers who may be employed by the regional and local land drainage committees.
It seems desirable that the provisions of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3, which relate to the pecuniary interests of members of local authorities and apply to members of regional water authorities,

should apply equally to members of regional and local land drainage committees.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am happy to advise the House, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that it should accept Amendment No. 85 for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones). However, Amendment No. 110 is considered to be unnecessary.
My hon. Friend explained the provisions of Section 116 of the 1972 Act which, in plain terms, are designed to prevent political jobbery. The idea is to prevent a member resigning his seat to take up an immediate appointment and reaping direct financial advantage from his election to an authority. The Government accept that a person should not at the same time be both a member and a paid officer of a water authority. The question at issue is whether someone who is a member of an authority should then be prevented from taking a position as a paid officer of that authority, granted that this would involve his resignation as a member.
The amendment would introduce a limitation into the search by water authorities for the best available talent. In certain cases this could have undesirable or at least unfortunate effects. For example, as the Bill is drafted, local authorities can, if they wish, appoint one of their officers as their representative on the water authority. The local authority associations appear to have accepted this. A post with the water authority might subsequently be advertised and such an officer might wish to apply for it, but the amendment would prevent his doing so. The same would apply to someone in industry who held an office connected with water pollution, was a member of a water authority, and wished to apply for a vacant post with that authority.
But these are fairly esoteric cases. It is the sort of thing which can be thought up as a technical possibility but is unlikely to occur. The disadvantages that would arise are considerable, and therefore, taking the rough with the smooth, as it were, I think it right to accept my hon. Friend's amendment, which I believe has the support of the local authority associations.
Amendment No. 110 is not necessary, because it is not necessary to apply paragraph 12 to regional or local land drainage committees. They will be serviced by officers of the water authority who are covered by that paragraph.
I hope my hon. Friend will agree that his second amendment is not necessary. On the whole, I think it right to accept the first one.

Amendment agreed to.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 86, in page 48, line 1 at end insert:
'13A.—(1) In paragraph (1) of the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (bodies to which in England and Wales that Act applies), for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
(c) water authorities ".
(2) Without prejudice to section 2(1) of that Act (application of section 1 of that Act to any committee of a body whose members consist of or include all members of that body), section I of that Act shall apply to every committee appointed or established by one or more water authorities under any provision of this Act or otherwise.
(3) Where section 1 of this Act applies to a committee by virtue of this paragraph, then, for the purposes of subsection (4)(c) of that section, premises belonging to the water authority or one or more of the water authorities which established or appointed the committee shall be treated as belonging to the committee'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 137.

Mr. Page: These amendments fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North-ants South (Mr. Arthur Jones).
The Bill as originally drawn up applied the legislation concerning the admission of the public and the Press to meetings, but we failed, as my hon. Friend said by his amendment, to apply the development of that legislation, as it occurred in the Local Government Act 1972, to the admission of the public and the Press to committees.
I think it right that water authorities should be brought into line with local authorities on this matter, and that is what the amendment does. It achieves what my hon. Friend intended to do with his amendment. If I may put it in a rude

way, parliamentary counsel have mucked about with his amendment and produced something a little better.

Mr. Arthur Jones: Have they improved it, and not merely mucked about with it?

Mr. Page: I always accuse them of mucking about, but they always improve both my hon. Friend's amendments and those which I try to draft.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 88 in page 50, line 29 leave out "except sub-paragraph 1(a) of paragraph 9".
Part II of the schedule deals with the status of the National Water Council and its membership. Paragraph 9(l)(a) properly provides that a person shall be disqualified for appointment as a member of a water authority if he is a paid officer of that authority. However, when dealing with the National Water Council this principle is set aside, so that it will be possible for officers of the council also to be members of it. It seems desirable that the provisions which apply to the regional water authorities should no less apply to the National Water Council, and that is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I realise that the local authority associations have described the position under the Bill whereby a paid officer of a local authority can be a member of the National Water Council or, indeed, a paid officer of the council can be a member of the council, as thoroughly objectionable, but I cannot agree with that. I draw a distinction between the water authorities and the National Water Council. The water authorities are analogous to local authorities, and I think the rule ought to apply that a paid officer should not be a member of them, but the National Water Council is not a local authority type of body. It is an appointed body to advise the Secretary of State.
A case could conceivably arise in which the Secretary of State wished to make one of the chief executives of a council one of his appointees on the National Water Council. I say that it could occasionally arise, but perhaps I may give an example of what I mean.
In our earlier debates we rightly paid tribute to the Water Resources Board, but I call attention to the fact that the present director, Sir Norman Rowntree, is also a member of the board and I think that we would have been loth to lose his services as a member. On councils of this kind, with their many important functions, it will always be particularly important to find the best people available to fill posts as appointed members. The amendment would create an arbitrary barrier to doing so. and I therefore ask the House to reject it.
I do this reluctantly, because my hon. Friend has almost rewritten the Bill on Report. I have been able to accept many of his amendments, and I have been grateful for the constructive way in which he has put them forward. I regret that I have to ask the House to reject one of his amendments.

Mr. Oakes: I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) for the tremendous amount of work that he has done not only on Report but in Committee. It is a pity that the Government have not accepted some of the hon. Gentleman's excellent amendments. The Committee accepted them but, unfortunately, they have been rejected by the House on Report.
I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the distinction that he draws between a regional water authority, which he describes as basically a local government body—the way in which regional water authorities are constituted makes one feel somewhat reluctant so to describe them—and the National Water Council. I do not think that it is a fair parallel to use the example of a member of the Water Resources Board, which is a totally independent body in a way that the National Water Council is not.
Bearing in mind the composition of the National Water Council, which consists of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, the chairman of each and every water authority who is appointed by the Secretary of State and the 10 other members appointed by the Secretary of State or by the Minister—and there is now the possibility of chief executives of regional water authorities

sitting on that body—though it may well be rare for such appointments to be made I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as so often, was being logical in what he has suggested, and that it would be wise for the Minister to accept the amendment if it is to deal with only a limited number of cases.
By not accepting what, to my mind, is a logical amendment one is faced with the possibility of the National Water Council's being even more a creature of the Secretary of State. If the amendment were accepted the council would be on all fours with the regional water authorities from the point of view of its officers and members.

Mr. Graham Page: I hope that I may have the leave of the House to speak again.
Having regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), I should not like it to be thought that we were doing anything that would make the public think that the National Water Council was not an independent body, but was in some way a creature of the Secretary of State.
I have listened to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Widnes. I should like to think about this matter again. Points have been made which make me feel that the issue may need a little more thought and if that is so we could make the necessary amendments in another place. I do not give any undertakings on this but I am impressed by the arguments.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister and to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) for his advocacy on the amendment. I should not like to think that a precedent led to the terms in which the Bill is drawn. In addition to the points raised by the hon. Member there is a difficulty in relationships on a regional water authority between an officer and the members of the council, and perhaps even the chairman of the council, if, when the chairmen gets on to the council, he sees with him round the table one of the officers from his regional water authority. That could be a difficulty and could lead to embarrassment for both individuals.
Perhaps that is a further point that my right hon. Friend could consider. I am grateful to him for saying that he will look at the matter again, and in view of that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 52, line 20, leave out paragraph 30.
We have heard on many occasions that the Government's intentions for local government—and I think they apply to the water cycle, too—are to reduce the responsibility of central control. That is not so evident in the regional water arrangements as it is in local government. Paragraph (30)(a), (b) and (c) contain substantial powers which remain with the Ministers and the Treasury on the whole question of reserves, re-allocation of reserves and the application of amounts allocated to reserves. They contain a restrictive condition. I know that we have discussed in Committee and on Report to a limited degree the question of financial control, but there need to be strong reasons for the maintenance of these powers, and it is with a view to questioning them that I moved the amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: The effect of the amendment would be, as my hon. Friend said, to remove from Ministers any power of direction over the water authorities' allocations to reserves. Paragraph (30) enables Ministers to give directions to water authorities, with the approval of the Treasury and following consultation with the National Water Council, on the amount to be allocated to reserve and the application of these allocations. Up to the time when the regional water authorities take over the existing bodies the powers of the present water undertakers and river authorities to establish reserve funds are closely prescribed either in local legislation or in general legislation.
Therefore, under the Bill they will go and in this respect the new authorities will have much greater freedom in organising and managing their reserves as they consider appropriate. The only control over the management of their reserves will be the Ministers' powers

under paragraph (30). The provision is a standard one. It is contained in various forms in most nationalised industry legislation. The power is purely permissive and gives Ministers the position of long stop so that they are able to use the power if it is necessary.
5.45 p.m.
I know that it can be argued that given the need for some form of central control over the reserves policies of the water authorities any directions made by Ministers under paragraph (30) should be given, perhaps by order, subject to the approval of Parliament. But the powers of ministerial direction over the reserve policies of the relevant authorities in past nationalised industry legislation has not been made subject to parliamentary control. Furthermore, the reserves policy of the water authorities will need to be intimately connected with their financial objectives and obligations, formal expression to which will be given by directions under Clause 25(2).
The House has already accepted that these directions, which will cover a very wide-ranging area of the water authorities' financial obligations, should be subject to parliamentary control. So to that extent directions of Ministers can come before Parliament, but we need to take it one step further for Ministers to have a normal standard permissive power to give directions about reserves. It is standard form with nationalised industries and although water authorities cannot be put on exactly the same basis as a nationalised industry, having removed the legislative restrictions by the Bill we need something which I have already described as a long stop—a fallback provision to enable direction to be made.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am grateful for that explanation of the need for these powers. What my right hon. Friend has said is the case in the context of the relationship between central Government and the regional water authorities. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 90, in page 52, line 32, leave out from ' Council' to ' by ' in line 33 and insert:
'shall, so far as not defrayed out of their own resources, to be defrayed, if it is properly chargeable to revenue account,".


The amendment applies to the paragraph which at present provides that expenditure of the National Water Council, which is properly chargeable to revenue accounts, shall be defrayed by the water authorities. The amendment merely makes it plain that the expenditure to which the paragraph refers is the net expenditure of the National Water Council in revenue account after allowing for any part of the expenditure met from the council's own resources. It is not a matter of the authorities paying a gross amount and the National Water Council, as it were, pocketing the money from its own resources. We are concerned with the net amount, and the amendment makes that plain.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 91, in page 55, line 39, leave out' exercise and performance' and insert' discharge'.
I will read the exact line from my brief on this. It says:
This amendment corrects a small drafting infelicity.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir D. Renton: I beg to move Amendment No. 170, in page 56, line 15, after ' Ministers ', insert ' and the Council'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 171 to line 18, which is in similar terms.

Sir D. Renton: The effect of this simple amendment would be to provide that every water authority would have a duty to furnish the National Water Council as well as Ministers with such information as the National Water Council may from time to time require about matters mentioned in the authority's area. The matters mentioned are set out in the later lines of paragraph 39.
I should have thought that was an obvious and reasonable thing to do.
If the Amendment No. 171 were also accepted, every water authority would have the duty to afford facilities to the National Water Council, just as they will have the duty to afford facilities to the Ministers for the verification of information so obtained. That also seems to be a reasonable provision.
There are good precedents which are already on the statute book. They are precedents which have stood the test of time and have become common form. One which strikes me as being suitable to quote is that in Section 8(6) of the Electricity Act 1957, which I had the honour of piloting through the House with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I reckon that what we did then is good enough for the Government of today. Therefore, I hope that both amendments will be accepted.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With such a precedent, who am I to resist my right hon. and learned Friend's blandishments? It must be right for the National Water Council as well to be able to obtain the information which it needs from the regional water authorities to do its job as the principal adviser on water policy to the Secretary of State and, indeed, to the whole country. There can be no argument about that.
This matter was discussed in Committee, and at that time my right hon. Friend felt that he could not accept the amendments then moved. I advise the House to accept gratefully what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about Amendment No. 170, and to accept the amendment.
There is a greater difficulty, which my right hon. and learned Friend will be one of the first to appreciate, about Amendment No. 171. In Amendment No. 170 we have the National Water Council requesting and requiring information from the regional water authorities. But Amendment No. 171 would create the impression that from time to time the regional water authorities would give inaccurate, inadequate or even misleading information which the National Water Council in its wisdom would need to verify. It would be in a position where it would be checking the information provided by the regional water authorities. I cannot believe that that would be a good relationship, bearing in mind that the chairman of each regional water authority is serving by right as a member of the National Water Council.

Sir D. Renton: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. But surely Ministers are being placed in the position


to which he is raising objection? I do not understand why we should place the National Water Council in a different position from Ministers in this matter.

Mr. Griffiths: With respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, there is a difference. The Secretary of State is charged under Clause 1 with an overall national responsibility for establishing the water policy and for securing, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, its efficient prosecution. The National Water Council is an advisory body. It has a number of rôoles, but in the end it is essentially the principal source of advice to my right hon. and learned Friend and, indeed, to the industry on all matters pertaining.
However, there is a difference. At the end of the day my right hon. and learned Friend has the executive responsibility to this House for the national water strategy and the policy which is required to achieve it. As he must answer to this House he must be in a position at all times not only to acquire information but, of his own right, to establish its authenticity and correctness. I stress to my right hon. and learned Friend that the chairmen of the regional water authorities will sit by right upon the National Water Council. Indeed, they will constitute a large proportion of that council. The Secretary of State is not in a like position. He is not a member of the National Water Council. On the contrary, he appoints it. It is difficult to visualise that the information which such persons will give to my right hon. and learned Friend will be inaccurate or misleading to the extent that he will need to verify it.
It is right to accept the first of my right hon. and learned Friend's amendments. I hope he will accept that there is a distinction between the position of the National Water Council and the position of the Secretary of State in this matter.

Sir D. Renton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that he will accept Amendment No. 170. However, I am surprised that he wishes to break with a good precedent. It is one which has worked well. I do not accept his reasons for doing so. It is a fact that the chairmen of the electricity boards are members of the Electricity Council. They

are, therefore, in exactly the same position as the chairmen of the regional water authorities will be in relation to the National Water Council. I cannot see the force of the argument which my hon. Friend puts forward. I do not wish to divide the House on this important amendment, and I shall, therefore, refrain from pressing Amendment No. 171 in the comforting knowledge that Amendment No. 170 will be accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

LAND DRAINAGE

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 57, line 11, after 'county', insert 'or district'.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: With this amendment it will be for the convenience of the House to take with it Amendment No. 96, in page 57, line 12, after 'county', insert 'or district'.
No. 98, in page 57, leave out lines 31 and 33.
No. 104, in page 59, line 42, leave out 'and not more than fifteen'.
No. 106, in page 60, line 4, after 'county ', insert ' or district'.

Mr. Oakes: This series of amendments arises at the request of the local government associations—the AMC, the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association. In essence it asks for representation by district councils as well as county councils on the regional and local land drainage committees. That is a reasonable request as Amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 106 deal with the local land drainage committees. There is equal validity for district councillors to sit on the regional committees.
When we consider the work of the regional committees, it appears that in the main a considerable part of their duties will be to deal with drainage in a given area. Their problems will be overflowing ditches, water courses and the possibility of flooding. Those are preeminently the sort of things that a district councillor, who, as a rule, comes from the locality and knows the locality extremely well—he would be known by his constituents and would be easily available to be reached by them—can properly


bring up on the regional or local land drainage committee.
I know that the county councils are represented, but often the county councillor sitting on a land drainage committee could, with our modern county councils, live a considerable distance away. When people are faced with overflowing ditches or a brook running through their home because of a heavy rain storm, they want someone available quickly to take up the matter. They do not want to search to find who might be the local representative of the county council on the district land drainage committee concerned.
6.0 p.m.
In no way is it sought by these amendments to diminish the number of representatives from county councils. This is not a war between district and county in which the district wants representation instead of the county. All that is asked for is parity of representation with the county.
These are reasonable amendments because of the local nature and type of complaint and problem which members of such land drainage committees are likely to face, and it would not do a great deal of harm to the Bill if the Government accepted them. It would mean altering the size of the committees, but in the interests of local democracy, and of the consumer—the householder—who wants to know where to go with his complaints or grievances, the amendments would admirably improve the Bill.

Sir D. Renton: In my constituency land drainage is probably as big a problem as is to be found in any constituency in England. We have very large areas of fen land and clay land. Both, for farming efficiency and for ordinary life, because the land is low lying, to a great extent depend upon drainage.
I have a measure of sympathy with the argument for the amendments because I think that the new district councils are going to be important bodies. But I believe that it is not strictly necessary for the district councils to be represented upon the land drainage committees. I think that the committees will be more effective if they are not too large and not too over-representative. They are to have some very important executive deci-

sions to take. I would be happy with the knowledge that our county councils were going to represent the local interests upon these important committees. I would not be inclined to insist that the district councils should be represented as well. It would mean, in effect, double representation. That I consider to be unnecessary.
I greatly welcome, as do many others in rural England, the provisions with regard to land drainage committees. They are going to have a very important job, and, while there might be some argument as to how best they can do it, on balance I am against adding representatives of district councils to them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The effects of the amendments fall into two categories. Amendments Nos. 95, 96, 105 and 106 would give the district councils an undefined measure of representation on regional and local land drainage committees. Amendments Nos. 100 and 108 would take this a stage further by making district council representation equal to that of the counties. Consequent amendments, bearing in mind the desire for parity, would mean that the size of these committees would have to be enlarged.
The inclusion of the county councils alone on the land drainage committees is intended to perpetuate the present day well-tried river authority system, which reflects the financial arrangements whereby the county councils meet the precept for land drainage. We consider that the reasonable demands of local democracy are met by the inclusion of county councillors, since they represent all the electors, including those in the districts, within a county. Having served as a member of a district council for 15 years, I understand well the views of the local authority associations on some of these matters.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) pointed out, one effect of the amendments would be in some cases to give virtually double representation because it would frequently happen that county council members would also be members of district councils, and there is no reason why such members should not be appointed to regional and local land


drainage committees. I take one river authority at random as an example. It happened to be the first one I asked about. It has 15 members—three county borough and 12 county council members. Of the 12 county council members, nine serve on either an urban district council or a rural district council.
Bearing in mind that regional and local land drainage committees are to be committees and sub-committees of water authorities, on which district councils will be represented, we are satisfied that the reasonable demands of local democracy are met. Government Amendment No. 62, agreed to yesterday on Clause 22, requires water authorities to consult local authorities about their forward programmes, including land drainage programmes. That will be of enormous help because of the inter-action over urban run-off—the drainage problem associated with urban development. Therefore, the district councils will be aware of and will have an opportunity to influence the shape and content of these programmes. To that extent, I believe the demands of democracy are totally met. There is no reason why district councillors should not be serving, in their rôole as county council members, on land drainage committees.
The other consequent effect of the amendments would be to alter the size of the committees. I agree that fairly small committees are more likely to be effective. I can understand that the local authority associations might not share that view in this case, but the local land drainage committees are intended, with some minor modifications, to carry on only the work of land drainage committees of existing river authorities, which have other functions—water conservation, pollution and fisheries—and it is not unreasonable to argue that with these limited functions they should have a small membership.
Therefore, because the Government believe that the demands of democracy are met and that the size of the committees is appropriate for the functions they are to fulfil, I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Oakes: I accept that there is a problem in deciding the balance between adequate representation and the size of a committee. It is an eternal problem to

the House. I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that I in no way detract from the duties of county councillors. My wife is a county councillor, so that is something I would not dare do.
The hon. Lady drew an analogy with an existing river authority, finding that 12 county councillors sat on it and that nine of them were also serving on district councils. I think that that is not likely to arise so much in future. I think that people serving in dual capacities are becoming much rarer today.
However, the House has ventilated the matter. Perhaps the other place will have second thoughts. I do not wish to divide the House on the issue, and, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in page 59, line 22, at end insert:
'and to the local authority for every area wholly or partly included in the drainage district or proposed drainage district to which such scheme relates.
(8) A local authority for an area wholly or partly included in a drainage district or proposed drainage district may make representations to the Minister in respect of any scheme sent to them under the preceding paragraph and the Minister shall take into account any such representations before approving the scheme'.
This amendment concerns land drainage committees. For every local land drainage district there will be a local land drainage committee, which is to be constituted in accordance with paragraph 5 and will include in its membership a majority of members appointed by local authorities.
County councils and district councils will have an interest in the constitution, areas of responsibility and activities of the local land drainage committees, and it is considered important that they should have a sight of the schemes proposed by the regional land drainage committees before they are approved by the Minister and should have an opportunity of making representations in regard to any of the provisions included in such schemes. It is the object of this amendment to secure that that is so.

Mrs. Fenner: As my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) said, the effect of this


amendment would be to require a water authority to send a copy of any scheme formulated by the regional land drainage committee for any part of its area not already included in a local land drainage district to all local authorities, county or district councils, wholly or partly in the area in question, as well as to the Minister and to require the Minister to take into account any representations those local authorities may make before approving any scheme.
The House will be aware that Schedule 4 provides for the division of water authority areas into local land drainage districts by means of local land drainage schemes. Three types of scheme are envisaged. Paragraph 4(1) provides for initial schemes for dividing up the area of the water authority into local land drainage districts with effect from 1st April 1974, when the water authority becomes operational. Paragraph 4(3) allows the Minister to direct either that no scheme is required for a particular water authority area or that a scheme need only cover part of that area. Paragraph 4(6) provides for subsequent schemes to cover any part of a water authority area not covered by an initial scheme. Paragraph 6(1) provides for variation or revocation schemes, which may apply to either an initial scheme or a subsequent scheme.
The general intention is that local land drainage districts should correspond to the present river authority areas, which cover the whole of England and Wales with the exception of the London excluded area. It is only in those few cases where an existing river authority covers the same area as that of a proposed water authority—for example, Northumbrian and Yorkshire—that there will be scope for not having a local land drainage scheme. Consequently, the scope for a "subsequent scheme" as described in paragraph 2(2) is extremely limited. I am not sure whether that was the intention, but that is the way it would be as drafted.
Such an amendment could not be accepted for initial schemes because the tight timetable does not allow time for formal consultations with local authorities and other interested bodies. The overriding consideration is that local land drainage committees should become operational on 1st April 1974 at the same time as water authorities. On the other hand, the Government's intention is clear and

already well known: local land drainage districts should normally correspond to the present river authority areas.
The amendment as it stands is defective in three ways. The drafting is deficient, it does not apply to a variation or revocation scheme and in seeking to obtain consultation it unnecessarily limits it to local authorities. We in fact consult a wide range of interests including drainage boards, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Certainly my amendment refers to the previous paragraph, which says,
for which there is then no such scheme in force.
My hon. Friend applied adjectives to my amendment which I thought a little harsh. I should have thought that both county councils and district councils ought to be consulted and have an opportunity of commenting on extension of local land drainage schemes. I cannot see anything against that. After all, we are trying to bring about arrangements in which those who have responsibilities will be working in the closest possible harmony, and if there is any impediment to that relationship we should seek ways and means of eliminating it.
I hope that my interpretation is that my hon. Friend will be kind enough to look at this matter again. If she will do so, as I am sure she will, in the circumstances I would wish to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. Fenner: May I be permitted to add that certainly at a later stage we can consider amendments which could meet the substance of the proposed amendment so far as it applied to any scheme other than an initial scheme. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. Jones: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 60, line 37, at end insert:
'(4) Any member of a regional or local land drainage committee appointed by or on behalf of constituent councils who at the time


of his appointment was a member of a constituent council shall if he ceases to be a member of that council, cease also to be a member of the committee at the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the date when he ceases to be a member of the council or on the appointment of another person in his place, whichever first occurs; but for the purposes of this sub-paragraph a member of a council shall not be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the council by reason of retirement if he has been re-elected a member thereof not later than the date of his retirement'.
It was conceded during the Committee stage of the Bill that if a local authority member of a regional water authority was at the time of his appointment a member of an appointing local authority he should, if he ceased to be a member of that authority, also cease to be a member of the regional water authority. The purpose of this amendment is to bring land drainage committees into similar circumstances, and the same consideration should apply as that which applies to regional water authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the sensible purpose of this amendment and will accept the amendment.

Mrs. Fenner: As my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) has pointed out, the effect of this amendment would be to apply to local authority members of regional and local land drainage committees the same requirements regarding cessation of membership as apply under Clause 3(14) to local authority members of water authorities. I am happy to inform the House that my right hon. Friend can accept this amendment. It may well be that we shall wish to make minor drafting amendments, but they will not alter the effect of this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5

CONSEQUENTIAL, TRANSITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 111, in page 69, line 16, at end insert:

'PART I TATIONS OF 1972 ACT'

No. 112, in page 69, line 29, leave out from 'to' to end of line 33 and insert 'a transferor body'.

No. 113, in page 69, line 35, leave out from second ' a' to end of line 36 and insert:
transferee authority; and
(c) if the reference is, or is to be construed as a reference to existing and new authorities, be construed as a reference to transferor bodies and transferee authorities'.

No. 114, in page 69, leave out lines 42 to 46 and insert:
'transferor bodies, the Water Supply Industry Training Board and transferee authorities, and the references in subsection (4) to a public body shall be construed accordingly;
(b) for the second reference in subsection (1) to alteration, abolition or constitution there shall be substituted a reference to the provisions of this Act; and'.

No. 115, in page 70, line 5, at end insert:
'and in subsection (6) the references to Parts I and II shall include a reference to this Act'.

No. 116, in page 70, line 17, after 'provided', insert:
'in the local authority's area'.

No. 117, in page 70, line 21, leave out from 'land' to 'to' in line 22, and insert:
'on terms provided for by the order if the land subsequently ceases to be used for the purpose for which it was transferred and, while the land is vested in the water authority, a right'.

No. 118, in page 70, line 27, at end insert '(a)'.

No. 119, in page 70, line 29, leave out from ' to ' to end of line 33 and insert:
'a transferor body and the Water Supply Industry Training Board;

(b) the second reference to sections 1 and 20 shall include a reference to the transfer of functions and abolition of bodies effected by or under this Act; and
(c) the second reference to a local authority shall include a reference to a transferee authority'.

No. 120, in page 70, line 42, leave out from ' means' to end of line 46 and insert:
'a transferor body, the Water Supply Industry Training Board and a transferee authority; and
(b) subsection (4) shall be omitted'.

No. 121, in page 71, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert:

'Supplemental

9.—(1) In this Part of this Schedule—
applied" means applied by section 30 above;
existing" and "new" have the same meanings as in the 1972 Act;
transferee authority" means a water authority or the Council; and
transferor body" means a development corporation or any authority or statutory water undertakers whose functions will by virtue of this Act become exercisable by a water authority or an association of such other authorities or such undertakers.
(2) Any reference in this Part of this Schedule to any enactment without specifying the Act in which it is contained is a reference to a provision of the 1972 Act.

PART II

LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS

10. Subject to paragraph 11 below, any local statutory provision to which this Part of this Schedule applies and which is not continued in force by any other provision of this Act shall—

(a) notwithstanding the transfer of functions and abolition of bodies effected by or under this Act, and, in the case of an instrument made under any enactment, notwithstanding the repeal of that enactment, continue to apply on and after 1st April 1974to, but only to, the area, things or persons to which or to whom it applies before that date;
(b) have effect subject to any necessary modifications and to the modifications made by paragraph 12 below;

but the continuation by this paragraph of an instrument made under any enactment shall not be construed as prejudicing any power to vary or revoke the instrument which is exercisable apart from this paragraph.

11. Paragraph 10 above shall have effect subject to the provisions of—

(a) this Act and any Act passed after this Act and before 1st April 1974;
(b) any order made under section 254 of the 1972 Act, as applied by section 30 above, or paragraph 13 or 14 below.

12. As from 1st April 1974 any local statutory provision to which this Part of this Schedule applies and which immediately before that date applies to an area which on that date becomes comprised in one or more water authority areas shall have effect, so far as relates to functions which on that date become exercisable by a water authority and to things done or falling to be done in the exercise of those functions, as if for any reference to the body by whom the functions were exercisable immediately before that date there were substituted a reference to that water authority, or where the former area becomes comprised in two or more water authority areas, the water authority for the water authority area in or as respects which that thing falls to be done.

13. Paragraph 12 above shall have effect subject to any provision to the contrary made by, or by any instrument made under, this Act and, without prejudice to the foregoing, the Secretary of State may by order provide for the exercise of functions conferred by any local statutory provision to which this Part of this Schedule applies and exclude the operation of that paragraph where it would otherwise conflict with any provision of the order.

14. Where any local statutory provision is continued in force in any area by paragraph 10 above or is amended or modified in its application to any area by an order under section 254 of the 1972 Act, as applied by section 30 above, the appropriate Minister or Ministers may by that order, or in the case of a provision continued as aforesaid, by an order under this paragraph—

(a) extend the provision throughout the water authority area in which it is continued in force or extend it to a part of that area in which it was not previously in force;
(b) provide that that provision as so continued, amended, modified or extended shall have effect in that area or part to the exclusion of any enactment for corresponding purposes, including any enactment contained in or applied by this Act;
(c) make such modifications of any such enactment in its application to that area or part as would secure that the enactment will operate harmoniously with the said provision in that area or part;
(d) repeal or revoke any local statutory provision to which this Part of this Schedule applies and which appears to the appropriate Minister or Ministers to have become spent, obsolete or unnecessary or to have been substantially superseded by any enactment or instrument which applies or may be applied to the area, persons or things to which or to whom that provision applies;
(e) make such modifications of any local statutory provision to which this Part of this Schedule applies in its application to a water authority area or part of such an area as appear to the appropriate Minister or Ministers to be expedient.

15. A statutory instrument containing an order under paragraph 14 above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

16. This Part of this Schedule applies to any local statutory provision in force immediately before 1st April 1974 and relating to—

(a) a body abolished by section 29 above;
(b) functions which immediately before that date are exercisable by an existing local authority and on that date became exercisable by a water authority; or
(c) some area constituted for the exercise of functions affected by this Act and situated wholly or partly within Greater London'.

No. 122, in page 71, line 47, leave out from 'the' to 'Ministers' in line 1 on page 72 and insert' appropriate Minister or'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Schedule 6

PROCEDURE RELATING TO BYELAWS

Amendments made: No. 123, in page 72, line 2, leave out from ' the ' to second 'to' in line 3 and insert:
'appropriate Minister or Ministers shall cause a notice of his or their intention to make the byelaw'.

No. 124, in page 72, line 4, leave out 'he thinks' and insert:
'is in his or their opinion'.

No. 125, in page 72, line 6, leave out 'Minister intending to make the byelaw' and insert 'appropriate Minister or Ministers'.

No. 126, in page 72, line 9, after 'him', insert 'or them'.

No. 127, in page 72, line 19, leave out from 'The' to first 'is' in line 20 and insert:
'appropriate Minister or Ministers may fix the date on which a byelaw'.

No. 128, in page 72, line 30, leave out 'Minister who made it' and insert 'appropriate Minister or Ministers'.

No. 129, in page 72, line 31, after ' he ', insert ' or they '.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Schedule 7

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS, ETC.

Amendments made: In page 75, line 2, after '(b)', insert:
'of the proviso (as substituted by section 1 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1965)'.

No. 130, in page 75, line 5, at end insert:
'but as respects the use of any noxious substance such permission shall not be given by a water authority otherwise than with the approval of the Minister'.

No. 131, in page 75, leave out lines 28 and 29.

No. 132, in page 76, line 8, leave out from 'lands)' to end of line 11 and insert:
'(a) for the words from the beginning to "board", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "Any water bailiff or other officer of a water authority may, under a special order in writing from the authority,";

(b) after the words "this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1972".

15A. In section 69 of that Act (order to enter suspected places)—

(a) for the words from "any", in the first place where it occurs, to "Act" there shall be substituted the words "a water bailiff or any other officer of a water authority it appears to any justice of the peace that the officer has good reason to suspect that any offence against this Act or the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1972 ";
(b) for the words "such member or bailiff" there shall be substituted the words "that officer ".

15B. In section 70 of that Act (warrant to enter suspected premises)—

(a) after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "or the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1972";
(b) for the words "water bailiff, member of a fishery board" there shall be substituted the words "water bailiff or other officer of a water authority".

15C. For section 72 of that Act (powers of officers appointed by Minister) there shall be substituted the following section:—

"72. The Minister may appoint persons to exercise in a water authority area—

(a) the powers of a water bailiff under sections 67 and 71 of this Act; and
(b) the powers of an officer of a water authority under sections 68, 69 and 70 of this Act;

and those sections shall accordingly apply to any such person, except that for the reference in section 67 to a special order from the water authority there shall be substituted a reference to an order in writing from the Minister"'.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

No. 135, in page 82, line 31, at end insert:

'Protection of Birds Act 1954

48A. In section 14(1) of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 (interpretation) for the words in paragraph (c) of the definition of "authorised person" from "that is to say" to "1945" there shall be substituted the words "that is to say, the Natural Environment Research Council, a water authority or any other statutory water undertakers, a local fisheries committee constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966,"'.

No. 136, in page 82, line 45, at end insert:

'Highways Act 1959

50A.—(1) In subsection (4) of section 103 of the Highways Act 1959 (drainage of highways and proposed highways) for the words "local authority" there shall be substituted the words "water authority".

(2) In subsection (4A) of that section (notice to be given before exercise of powers under subsection (4)) after the word "district" there


shall be inserted the words "and the water authority".

50B. For section 227(2) of that Act (determination of differences about vesting and use of highway drains and sewers) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—

"(2) Any difference arising under this section—

(a) between a county council and the council of a district—

(i) as to the council in whom a drain is vested, or
(ii) as to the use of a drain or sewer; or

(b) between a county council and a water authority as to the use of a sewer, shall, if either party to the dispute so elect, be referred to and determined by the Secretary of State"'.

No. 137, in page 83, leave out lines 1 to 6.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 138, in page 84, line 13, at end insert:
'57A. After section 24(9) of the Water Resources Act 1964 (exceptions from general restrictions) there shall be added the following subsection:—
(10) In this section, 'land drainage' includes the protection of land against erosion or encroachment by water, whether from inland waters or from the sea, and also includes warping and irrigation other than spray irrigation"'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We may discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 139 and 140.

Mr. Page: These amendments are intended to introduce into the Water Resources Act 1963 the new definition of land drainage contained in Clause 34(1), but to preserve the definition originally contained in the 1963 Act for the purposes of Part IV of the Bill, dealing with the control of extraction and impounding of water. It is regrettable that we shall have two definitions of land drainage, but this is unavoidable. Otherwise, we should have to change the law regarding licensing, with which this Bill does not deal. So we are leaving it as it is under the 1963 Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 139, in page 84, line 14, leave out 'the Water Resources Act 1963' and insert 'that Act'.

No. 140, in page 85, line 3, at end insert:
'60A. In section 135(1) of that Act (interpretation) for the definition of land drainage

there shall be substituted the following definition:—
land drainage" includes defence against water (including sea water), irrigation other than spray irrigation, warping and the provision of flood warning systems;'.

No. 141, in page 85, line 3, at end insert:
'60A. In paragraph (d) of section 79(4) of that Act (byelaws relating to reservoirs) after the word "undertaker" there shall be inserted the words "other than the water authority"'.

No. 142, in page 85, line 3, at end insert:
'60B. In section 135(3) of that Act (definitions) after the word "means" there shall be inserted the words "a water authority and"'.— [Mr. Graham Page.]

No. 143, page 86, line 34, at end insert:
'67A. In section 9(1) of that Act (production of fishing licences) for the words from the beginning to the end of paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the words "A water bailiff appointed under the Water Act 1973 on producing evidence of his appointment, or any constable,".

67B. For paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to that Act (provisions with respect to licences) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
18. The production of a printed copy of a statement purporting to be issued by a water authority as to a licence duty fixed and, if it be the case, approved by the Minister under this Schedule or under the 1923 Act shall be prima facie evidence that the licence duty was fixed or approved as there mentioned and of the amount of the duty, and without proof of the handwriting or official position of any person purporting to sign the statement."'.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Schedule 8

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 144, in page 87, line 33, column 3, leave out 'second' and insert 'first'.

No. 145, in page 87, leave out line 35.

No. 146, in page 87, leave out line 37. —[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

No. 147, in page 88, line 18, column 3, at end insert:



'In section 90(1) the definition of sewerage authority'.— [Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 150, in page 89, column 3, leave out line 4, and insert:



'In section 38, in subsection (1) the words from "whether" to "enactment" and subsections (6) and (7)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 149.

Mr. Page: I have many times told the story about the town clerk who, in a Private Bill before the House, introduced in paragraph (viii) of subsection (10) of Clause 333, a provision that the town clerk's marriage should be dissolved. These amendments are a similar case.
The amendments correct an error in the final stages of the Committee debates, when, because of a misprint on the Order Paper, an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) to repeal the whole of Section 38 of the Water Act 1945, and almost to destroy the whole structure of water organisation, was passed under the mistaken impression that it was a Government amendment. Had the amendment been correctly ascribed, it would not have been moved, but it got into the statute, and we have to put the matter right.
So I move "That the town clerk's marriage be not annulled", and hope that the House will accept this correction.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 149, in page 89, leave out line 5.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 152, in page 90, line 36, column 3, at end insert:



'Section 19(2).



In section 25, subsection (4) and in paragraph (a) of subsection (7), the words "and the Water Resources Board".



In section 32(5) the words from "or is" to "1936", the words "sold or leased" and the words "and in the case of a lease, for the period of the lease".



Section 33(3).



In section 48(1) the words "and of section 103 thereof".'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that this amendment is to be taken together with Amendments Nos. 153–160.

Mr. Page: This large number of amendments arises consequentially on the abolition of the Water Resources Board, the repeal of the Public Health Act Code for water supply, the change of duties of the statutory water undertakers, the repeal of

charging, abolition of joint sewerage boards and other consequential matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 153, in page 90, line 38, column 3, at end insert:

'In section 63(1) the words from "either" to "authority", in the first place where that word occurs'.

No. 154, in page 90 column 3, leave out line 39 and insert:



'In section 64, subsection (1) and in subsection (2) the words from the beginning to "subsection".'

No. 155, in page 90, line 41, column 3, at end insert:



'In section 81(2), the words "and after prior consultation with the Water Resources Board".'

No. 156, in page 90, line 56, column 3, leave out '(1)' and insert ', in subsection (1)'.

No. 157, in page 90, line 58, column 3, at end insert:



'and in subsection (4) the words" to the Water Resources Board or".'

No. 158, in page 91, line 11, column 3, at end insert:



'Section 129'.

No. 159, in page 91, line 18, column 3, at end insert:



'In section 135, in subsection (1) the definitions of additional members, charging scheme, constituent council, first appointed day, functions, second appointed day and stautory water undertakers, and subsection (3)(b)'.

No. 160, in page 91, line 19, column 3, at end insert:



'In Schedule 7, paragraph 14'. —[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 161, in page 91, line 23, at end insert:



' 1965 c. 4.



The Science and Technology Act 1965.



In Schedule 2, the entry relating to the Water Resources Act 1963'.


This amendment repeals the provision in the Science and Technology Act 1965 which substituted references to the Natural Environment Research Council for the references in Section 102 of the


Water Resources Act 1963 to the Nature Conservancy. When the current Nature Conservancy Council Bill is enacted, there will have to be a further substitution in Clause 23, with the references to the Natural Environment Research Council becoming references to the Nature Conservancy Council. This substitution will be done later, either in the Nature Conservancy Council Bill or, if there is time, in a later stage of this Bill. But this amendment is correct now.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 162, in page 91, line 23, at end insert:



'1967 c. 78.



The Water (Scotland) Act 1967.



In section 36(2) the words "(except paragraph 16 of Schedule 2)".



In Schedule 2, paragraph 16'. —[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 163, in page 91. line 28, column 3, at end insert:



'In section 49(2), the definitions of river authority and stautory undertakers'.


Perhaps it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 165.
These are amendments to definitions which arise out of previous provisions in the Bill and put right certain matters which needed correction.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 164, in page 91, line 42, at end insert:


'1972 c. 37. 
The Salmonand Freshwater Fisheries Act 1972.
Section 11(3). In section 15(3), the words from "and", in the second place where it occurs, to the end.'


—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

No. 165, in page 91. line 42, column 3, at end insert:



'1972 c. 21.



The Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972.



In section 7 the words from "and any" to the end of the section'.

No. 166, in page 91, line 45, column 3, at end insert:



'In section 262(13), the word 'water'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Denis Howell: In moving this Third Reading—[Laughter.]

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) desires to move the Third Reading, he is welcome to do so.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Before saying anything about the merits of the Bill, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Small Heath and his colleagues for the way in which they have constructively dealt with it throughout. I thank them and my hon. Friends for their co-operation on Report and in Committee. I appreciate the Opposition's dislike of many parts of the Bill. That has been made clear in our debates. I appreciate, too, that some of my hon. Friends are not enamoured of some provisions, or would like it to go further or less far, as the case may be. That makes me appreciate all the more the constructive criticism we have had throughout of the terms of the Bill. I hope that eventually, when it receives its Third Reading in this House and goes through another place, it will receive the same sort of co-operation from those who have to deal with it in the country, even those who perhaps feel that they would have liked a very different form of legislation.
In terms of water services reorganisation the Bill is merely the tip of the iceberg. Once it is on the statute book a great deal of work will have to be done in setting up the regional water authorities and all that goes with them. What we have tried to do in the Bill is to produce strong regional water authorities covering large areas, commanding great resources and in constitution a partner-sihp between democratic representatives and business expertise. As I have said previously in debates, it does not go as far as nationalising water services and sewerage and sewage disposal, and there is no intention of building a structure of a central authority and regional authorities under that central authority. The relationship will be direct between the Secretary of State and the regional water authorities, but the Secretary of State will act upon the advice of the National Water Council.
If one reads the Bill and the schedules carefully one will see that the National Water Council will have considerable powers, but not powers of command, over the regional water authorities. Some hon. and right hon. Members will remember that during the passage of the Local Government Bill—now the Local Government Act 1972—through this House I frequently referred to the functions of the different authorities as spheres of authority—functions in different spheres rather than different tiers. The same applies to the structure which we have set up in this Bill, of the strong regional water authorities having, as it were, complete government within their own spheres, a National Water Council, again with its own sphere of functioning, and to back it up the three units for advice in planning, research and data collection.
When we read the prophecies of gloom about the dry winter and the difficulties we are going to have over the next few months in terms of water supply and conservation, it may be thought that we shall get the Bill on the statute book only just in time. I believe that in the past—I am sure this is recognised by everybody who has debated this subject —we have not managed our water resources to the best advantage. If we set up a structure which can manage those resources so that there is a proper conservation and a proper supply of water we may be able to minimise the sort of difficulties which we see ahead, in terms of the shortage of water in the next few months, which will arise unless we have a very wet summer.
I do not know what to wish. As responsible, indirectly perhaps, for the water conservation and supply of this country, I would wish for a very wet summer, but as an ordinary individual that is the last thing I would wish. That is the sort of dilemma in which we are put through not having managed our water resources to the best advantage in the past. I hope we can do so in the future. Of course, it has been impossible to separate sewerage and sewage disposal from water services, because in this country sewage is 99·9 per cent. water-borne. So in the Bill we have endeavoured to set up that structure.
There are two particular points which I want to mention. The first is the ques-

tion of staff. To those who are concerned in this matter we have set the tremendous task of eventually getting the authorities operative. The people who will have the most severe job are those who are employed in this kind of service at the moment—water services and sewerage—and who will have to decide what is best for their future career in terms of where to work and if they choose to go into the regional water authorities, will have the task of setting up these authorities. I hope we have made adequate provision in the Bill to deal fairly with all staff, whether they wish to transfer or to take advantage of the opportunity of resigning from their jobs, depending on their age, and so on. Certainly we wish to avoid all hardship in a changeover of organisation in this way.
The second point is one which I know was troubling Opposition Members as much as it was hon. Members on this side, particularly myself. It was whether by setting up these regional water authorities we would be depriving many people of the ability to offer service in local government. I am not dealing with something which is outside a Bill of this kind, although there was a new clause which was not called. However, in fact it was not necessary because I have now been advised—and I am delighted to advise the House—that the relevant provision of the Local Government Act 1972 —Section 80—provides, broadly speaking, that a person is disqualified from being elected or being a member of a local authority if he holds any paid office or employment, and appointment to that office or employment is dependent upon the decision of that local authority or the decision of a joint board or joint committee on which the authority is represented.
The fear of hon. Gentlemen opposite —and, indeed, my own fear—was that the regional water authorities were joint boards. I am now advised that this is not so, and that they do not count as joint boards or joint committees. So the effect of the Bill will be just the opposite of what we feared. It will be to make eligible for membership of local authorities a large number of existing employees of local authorities or joint boards who, by virtue of the Bill, will be transferred to regional water authorities. So


in fact we are releasing many more people to serve on local authorities than could serve previously. I hope that 90 per cent. of those at present employed in these services within local authorities will be transferring to regional water authorities. By doing that they will become able to stand for local authority membership. I am delighted to be able to report that. I had a great fear that we were reducing the number of people who could so stand, but in fact the Bill will do just the opposite.
I will not detain the House any longer. I thank again all those who have been concerned in the progress of the Bill for the constructive way in which they have dealt with it.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I first express appreciation to the Minister for his kind remarks about the constructive approach of the Opposition and Members on his own side in Committee and at other stages. On their behalf, and I am sure on behalf of everyone present, I should like to reciprocate with similar kind remarks to the right hon. Gentleman and his whole ministerial team. They have treated us with great courtesy, even when we have been irate with each other about heads of agreement, missing documents and so on, which we have sorted out satisfactorily in the end.
The Minister and his colleagues gave us great help in Committee on a most difficult matter by supplying all the documents and maps we needed to understand fully what we were acceding to. I thank the Minister. It is typical of his helpful attitude—which we all expect of him, having known him for many years in the House—that at the very last he has still been extremely helpful on one of the points that we consider to be very important, the eligibility of people within the water industry to serve on local authorities. The matter has exercised us not only in connection with water but with many other industries. Far too many people have been disqualified from giving public service, and our public service cannot afford to disqualify able men and women.
We had tabled a specific amendment on the point, but were unable to discuss it because of the shortage of time. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clearing up the matter. It is not the least

of the things for which we want to express our appreciation to him.
Notwithstanding the Minister's cooperation, I must say at the end, as I did at the beginning of the Bill's saga, that the Opposition find the Bill wholly unsatisfactory and unacceptable. As far as I can discover, it does not have a friend in the whole of elected local government. I meet many councillors of all political persuasions and none, and nobody I have met in the whole of democratically elected government believes that it is right to take local government water resources away from local government and reorganise them in the way that the Government propose.
It is an extremely sad business, but it is absolutely in line with the Government's developing philosophy for all their governmental reform. The reorganisation of water cannot be taken in isolation from last year's massive local government reform and the proposals still before the House for the reorganisation of the health services. All the time the Government seem to go for larger units for managerial efficiency, and all the time what is sacrificed is the accountability of the service to the public and the relationship, which should be close and intimate in all those public services, between the operation of the service and the people running it.
Under the present Government, Whitehall Man reigns supreme. He knows what is best for the rest of us, what is best for the country, what is best for local government.
I am tempted, but the hour is late, to quote against these developments in local government, water, the health service and so on everything that the Conservatives said in their election manifesto in 1970, when they were going to give more power to local authorities, to help local authorities to take their own decisions and be masters in their own house, and to get off the backs of local government. We were told that Whitehall would be out of the way. When we examine that philosophy in the light of the measures I have mentioned, and especially the present Bill, we see what nonsense it is.
The Bill not only almost totally removes the direct accountability of the water industry and those who control it to the public but undermines our democratic processes. No elected representatives will


now appear on any of the regional water authorities or the National Water Council. The Under-Secretary of State and others from time to time have told us that there will be a majority of elected councillors. There will not. There will be a majority of elected councillors selected and appointed by Ministers and answerable to Ministers. That is totally different from local authorities electing their own representatives, responsible direct to the local authority and the constituencies they represent. It is a fundamental departure from our concept of local government.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I heard the hon. Gentleman talk in those terms yesterday. Is not it true that the representatives on the regional water authority from the counties are nomineees of the county authorities, so that they are not appointed by the Minister?

Mr. Howell: That is absolutely true. If I did not get it quite right in the mind of the House I am anxious to get it right now. But the fact is that the power will lie with the nominees and appointees of the Minister, particularly the chairmen of the authorities. The essence of the matter is that time and again under the Bill the local authority representatives have a majority of one, which is totally inadequate if water is to be regarded as a local government service.
When the Minister sees the chairman as a manager, it is a matter of the gravest concern to us all. The managerial concept of the members of the authority is something that most of us on both sides found objectionable. When we discussed the matter at a late hour last night, very few hon. Members believed it right that the members and the chairman, the policy makers, should be regarded as managers. That has never been the concept of local government in this country, and it should not be now. Indeed, it should not be the case too often in industry either.
A board of directors in industry or an authority dealing with water policy should be removed and divorced from the immediate day-to-day responsibility for management. It should be a body representing the public interest. That is one of the reasons why, though we support the Government's attempt to achieve greater efficiency within the water industry and to tie it in with the hydrological cycle, we have the greatest difficulties.
The very size of the organisations that we are setting up causes us the greatest heart-searching. A glance at Schedule 1 shows us the size of the authorities. In Anglia one authority with 20 people on it has to represent
East Suffolk and Norfolk, Essex, Great Ouse, Lincolnshire and Welland and Nene … except the part of the area of the Essex River Authority which is included in the area of the Thames Water Authority.
It is a monumental task for any body democratically to represent the public in an organisation of that sort. How on earth will the public have any relationship with the 20 people, not all of whom are local authority people, who represent them on that body? It will be impossible.
So it is with the Southern Water authority, the Wessex Water Authority, the South West Water Authority and the Severn-Trent Water Authority, which I know. The Severn-Trent authority area will start in Wales and spread right across the Midlands into Lincolnshire. It will go from Lincoln in the north to Gloucester in the south. It is an abortion of an authority. Nobody can say that it is a local government authority.
The hydrological cycle, for all its value, was here before man. The rivers were flowing before man was on this planet. Although we should take account of the hydrological cycle, should we not also so order our domestic arrangements that they are sensible and meaningful in terms of local government and population considerations.
I am glad that the Minister has made it possible for people in the industry to serve on local authorities, but I return to the point I made last night, that some of those serving on the water authorities will need to take two days off work, for example, to attend a sub-committee meeting, to travel from mid-Wales to Birmingham or Nottingham. The man from Mid-Wales or the border counties cannot abdicate his responsibility for what his authority is doing in Lincolnshire. In law all the members of the authority have a total responsibility for every part of the area. A member cannot say '"I will interest myself only in the area in which I live." A county council will appoint someone to the authority, but that person will not be there specifically to deal with the affairs of the county council which has appointed him.
We on this side contend that water should be a publicly-owned service. We find it objectionable in principle that the private companies are left out of the Bill. Whatever future arrangements are needed, there is adequate water. The whole problem is collecting it, transporting it, and disposing of it thereafter. That problem can be best dealt with by a national plan, which can be based only on national ownership. We therefore want a strong national organisation—which the Bill does not provide—with responsibility for research, planning, and transportation of water and for its disposal up to levels of purification which the national authority finds acceptable.
There must be some degree of regionalism, if only because of the river authority system and responsibility for rivers. On the whole, we see the regional authority acting as a wholesaler—getting water from the national organisation and selling it to the local authority.
We would give local authorities a much more important place in the water industry than the Government are doing. The Government are depriving local authorities of responsibility for water. There is no reason why local authorities should not retain responsibility for water and be responsible to public pressure. The proper place for people to express their concern about charging is through elected local authority representatives. Let us have proper argument on a local authority basis as to the best way of charging for water.
For all these reasons, although we agree with the Government so far that we need more water, that it must be made more readily available, and that it is in the national interests to do that efficiently and economically, we cannot agree that the Bill provides a means by which to do so. The new Labour Government must take steps to amend the Bill. For the time being I recommend the House to divide against Third Reading.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Simeons: I welcome the Bill basically because of the large regional water authorities which it will establish and which have been hailed by many onlookers outside. Because of this, it has nothing to do with local government. The fact that there has been an attempt by Opposition Members to introduce that question has created problems.
In view of the benefits which will accrue under the Bill, the areas will have the resources to determine and to anticipate what is going on in the cycle. The one sphere which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) missed, but which I believe to be the great key to the Bill, is the purification of water.
By itself this can be only an administrative measure. It must be taken with the comprehensive Bill which will deal with means of pollution control and also disposal by incineration.
Another basic and excellent feature about the Bill is that it will provide a career structure in water management, bringing together technical expertise which has not been possible hitherto.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: There are a number of points on which I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill, but I shall concentrate on one which amounts to a fundamental error in and which greatly affects the Principality. This matter has already been referred to, though not in express terms, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell).
The Government show particular political insensitivity in including the final control and management of the Upper Severn Basin in the Severn-Trent Water Authority. That authority will cover a large land mass and will control sewage disposal, water resources and amenities in the Mid-Wales area and the Upper Severn, which is almost entirely in my constituency. When one imagines a journey from Montgomeryshire to wherever the headquarters of the authority will be one can appreciate the tremendous remoteness involved.
The Severn is a particularly difficult river, in one sense. It rises in Wales, and flows out to the sea in Wales, but for much of its course it flows in England. It is therefore accepted that there must be a degree of compromise in the control of the Upper Severn.
The Government have made a great and fundamental error in putting that control in the hands of the Severn-Trent Water Authority. The safeguards outlined by the Minister of State yesterday are not sufficient. The Government will


pay dearly for this unnecessary mistake, I say "unnecessary" because it is accepted by all reasonable people that there had to be a degree of compromise in control, but it should have been clearly spelled out in the Bill that the final control is in the hands of the Welsh National Water Development Authority, because if it is not it is completely unacceptable.
Over the last 10 years Wales has had more political trouble over water than over any other subject. Yet, after all their experience in this matter, the Government are sufficiently stupid to make this fundamental error. The Secretary of State for Wales has done some very good things with regard to water, particularly the acceptance of his inspector's report on the Dulas Valley inquiry. But by putting his name to the Bill today he is sacrificing the good will that he won in that matter.
It can be argued on common sense, dispassionate grounds, that it will be easy to have consultation and that nothing will be done to upset the Welsh. But ordinary life and political life are not like that. This action will be seen in many quarters in Wales as the Government's deliberately taking out a section of Mid-Wales and putting it under the control of the Severn-Trent Water Authority.
Mid-Wales depends for much of its developing livelihood and prosperity on tourism. The Welsh Tourist Board and the Mid-Wales New Town Development Corporation are anxious to encourage tourism in the area. The greatest source of water in the whole of Wales is in the Upper Severn area, which will be controlled from outside.
Though the compromise spelled out in the Bill goes a little way towards meeting the objections, it by no means satisfies the Welsh people. It is unnecessary. All that the Government needed to do was to show a greater degree of political sensitivity and appreciate the psychological aspects of the matter.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I want to put the hon. and learned Gentleman right on one point. This was made very clear in Committee. The recreational plan for Wales will be made by the Welsh National Water Development Authority,

in consultation with the Severn-Trent Water Authority. It must have the final approval of the Welsh National Water Development Authority and the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Hooson: The execution is entirely in the hands of the Severn-Trent Water Authority. It should be the other way round. The Welsh National Water Development Authority should have the final say in planning and controlling its execution.
The Government clearly will not give way, but they will pay dearly for this unnecessary error. In the atmosphere of the House it is difficult to appreciate the repercussions that this will have in Wales For me, that is a sufficient reason in itself for voting against Third Reading.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rost: It may seem strange that some of us who were active during what was a long and interesting Committee stage should have been relatively silent on Report. I maintain that the reason for this is primarily that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have been very forthcoming in meeting the points that were raised in Committee. Many of the amendments that we debated were accepted in good faith, and for that reason many of us have found relatively little to say in the past two days.
I want to place on record my appreciation of the consideration which my hon. and right hon. Friends have given to those who have tried to contribute constructively to the proceedings on the Bill in Committee and the pleasant manner in which they dealt with amendments. I am particularly grateful for the amount of work in depth which was undertaken in investigating the various points raised. Although some things in the Bill leave me a little unhappy, such as public accountability in Parliament, the large area of the Severn-Trent Authority, and the question of democracy as opposed to patronage, these matters have been adequately debated. However, I still feel a little apprehensive about them.
The main advantage of the Bill is that it will result in improved facilities for environmental control, conservation, leisure and recreation. Our water resources will now be organised on a larger and more efficient scale. That should make it


possible to prevent the sort of environmental pollution that areas such as Derbyshire have had to put up with for far too long. Beautiful areas of country have been flooded. If the conservation and provision of water resources can be organised on this larger scale we should be able to find more sensible and practical solutions to our problems. The Government have been courageous and forward-looking in pressing ahead with this important legislation.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Rowlands: This Bill shares the same administrative philosophy, and will produce the same monolithic empires, as is evident in the Government's legislation dealing with local government and health. More power will be taken away from local people. Because we fought this philosophy so violently, because we feel that public services should be local and that there should be an identity of local interest, we oppose this Bill as we have opposed the others.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: I know that some hon. Members are getting restless and want to move on to other business. I know that others are getting restless for their dinners, or want to participate in other activities. This Bill has highlighted one of the main necessities of life. At the moment, people are dying in India because of a lack of water. The number of people who have died probably equals the number of casualties suffered in the Bangladesh fighting.
We started this Bill in January. People did not take much notice of it on Second Reading. As it progressed in Committee, because of the controversies it raised it became evident that here was an important public issue. Never before have I been inundated with so much material, from all sorts of organisations, when serving on a Committee. What have we done through this Bill? We have shown that water is no longer a cheap commodity, which can be wasted. It is not a luxury. It is no longer something that industry can take for granted.
The Bill seeks to ensure that we use water correctly. It does not go as far as I would like but it is the best we can get in the circumstances. I will vote against it for a variety of reasons, but I want to add my word in praise of the

right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the humane way in which they have tried to meet all the points that were raised. I say to my colleagues that they have done a damned good job in highlighting important issues.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I have taken no part in these proceedings since speaking on Second Reading. I acknowledge the helpful attitude of the Minister in Committee in dealing with many of the points that I mentioned, particularly with regard to land drainage. If I still remain rather dubious about the sheer size of the Anglian Water Authority I can say that the Bill will be more acceptable to Norfolk Members if during the remaining stages an effective means of local control can be found for the Norfolk Broads.
I know that this has been difficult. The consortium has been in disagreement because there are competing and conflicting interests. I am happy to say that at a meeting yesterday it agreed in principle upon a type of structure that almost comes within the exact limits set out in the Bill. With some modification it should solve the problem. I know that the Under-Secretary is going to Norwich to meet these authorities on Monday. I hope he will consider the proposals put forward and, if possible, bring them within the scope of the Bill in another place. I wish him well.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I hope that the House will acquit me of any discourtesy if I bring our proceedings to a close in about two minutes. This Bill is the product of a great deal of consultation. It was carefully prepared, and thoroughly discussed in Committee. It has been improved in Committee with the help of Opposition Members and my hon. Friends.
I summarise its advantages. It brings the water, sewerage and river management functions together, and in so doing helps safeguard our future supplies. It creates strong new regional authorities, able to handle large schemes for the transfer of water and the development of new resources. It introduces stronger management. At the same time, it seeks to balance the compelling needs of technology and management with those of


the locally elected members. It provides better arrangements for research and planning. It supplies a stronger base for finance, and for the first time it will require that all of our water space shall —not "may "—be developed for recreation and amenity.
I believe that the Bill is the envy of many European nations. The Belgian Minister of the Environment told me the other day that Belgium is creating three regional water authorities patterned on the Bill. When implemented, this legislation

may well produce the best-managed water system in the world, and it is very much to the credit of my right hon. Friend that having put through local government reorganisation he has now brought through the House a comprehensive and necessary reorganisation of our water services.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —

The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 209.

Division No. 117.]
AYES
 [7.10 p.m. 


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
 Fowler, Norman
McCrindle, R. A.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fox, Marcus
McLaren, Martin


Atkins, Humphrey
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
 McNair-Wilson, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fry, Peter
Maddan, Martin


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)]
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Madel, David


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gardner, Edward
Maginnis, John E.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gibson-Watt, David
Marten, Nell


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mather, Carol




Maude, Angus


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maxell Hyslop, R. J.


Benyon, W.
Goodhart, Philip
Meyer sir Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Green, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basinastoke)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Money, Ernie


Bowden Andrew
Grylls, Micheal
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bray, Ronald
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Monro, Hector


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus



Hall, Miss Joan (keighley)
More, Jasper


Brown sir Edward (Bath)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar


Burden, F.A.
Harrison, Col-sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Butter, Adam (Bosworth)
Haselhurst, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Micheal


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn




Chapman, Sydney
Havers, Micheal
Nott, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranley


Churchill, W.S.
Hicks, Robert
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clerk, William (Surrey, E.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Clegg, Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norford, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)




Parkinson, Cecll


Cooke, Robert
Holland, Phillip
Percival, Ian


Coombs, Derek
Holt, Miss Mary
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Cooper, A. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
pink, R. Bonner


Cordle, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
powell Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Proudfoot Wilfred


Crowder, F. P.
James, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jessel, Toby
Ralson, Timothy


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.Jack
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jopling, Michael
Redmond, Robert


Dixon, Piers
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rees, Peter (Dover)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dykes, Hugh
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald


Farr, John
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fidler, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shersby, Michael


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Loveridge, John
Simeons, Charles


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, R. N.
Sinclair, Sir George




Skeet, T. H. H.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Weatherlll, Bernard


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Soref, Harold
Temple, John M.
Wilkinson, John


Speed, Keith
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
 Winterton, Nicholas


Spence, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sproat, lain
Tilney, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Trew, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Stokes, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Younger, Hn. George


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Vickers, Dame Joan



Sutcliffe, John
Waddington, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.


Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Ward, Dame Irene



Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Warren, Kenneth





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forrester, John
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth


Armstrong, Ernest
Galpern, Sir Myer
Marsden, F.


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, W. E.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Barnes, Michael
Golding, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John


Baxter, William
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Milne, Edward


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamling, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S' hampton, Itchen)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)




Morris, Alfred (WYthenshawe)


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Murray, Ronald King


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Booth, Albert
Hattersley, Roy
O'Halloran, Michael


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Hooson, Emlyn
Orbach, Maurice


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Horam, John
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Hugh D. (G gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Padley, Walter


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pardoe, John


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pendry, Tom


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hunter, Adam
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Prescott, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Radice, Giles


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
John, Brynmor
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cox, Thomas (Wardsworth, C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewlsham, S.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russelll
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Ceakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamond, James
Short,Rt.Kn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dempsey, James
Latham, Arthur
Silkin. Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Leadbitter, Ted
Sillars, James


Dormand, J. D.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leonard, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Dunn, James A
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stallard, A. W.


Edelman, Maurice
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Steel, David


Edwards, Robert (Bllston)
McBride, Neil
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McCartney, Hugh
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ellis, Tom
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Ewing, Harry
McGuire, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackie, John
Swain, Thomas


Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Taverne, Dick


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tuck, Raphael


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Urwin, T. W.




Varley, Eric G.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Woof, Robert


Wainwright, Edwin
Whitehead, Phillip



Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wallace, George
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Watkins, David
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. James Hamilton.


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

PRICE AND PAY CODE

7.21 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move,
That the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 658), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.
This is the most important of the orders which we have made under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. Although it has been operative since the beginning of last month——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I hope that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley):
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Counter-Inflation (Notification of Increases in Prices and Charges) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 664), dated 1st April 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be annulled.

Mr. Jenkin: That will be convenient Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall refer to that motion briefly in my remarks.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion to which you refer is a negative order which we are praying against. Is it possible to take an affirmative order with a negative order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. Perfectly possible.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should not that motion be taken with the approval of the House rather than with the approval of the Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is right.

Mr. Jenkin: I stand rebuked. I was merely indicating that it would be

convenient to deal with the matter in that way, but it is a matter for the House as a whole.
The code order serves a dual purpose. First, it activated Part II of the Act on 1st April; and the House will remember that it is Part II of the Act which contains the statutory powers conferred on the Price Commission and Pay Board respectively. Secondly, the order sets out the detail of the policies on prices and pay which lie at the heart of stage 2 of our counter-inflation strategy.
In opening this debate it will be appropriate for me to refer briefly to the Government's counter-inflation policy as a whole in order to set the context for our discussion of the order. Then I shall draw the House's attention to the several changes of substance between the code as it appeared in the Green Paper and the final version in the order; I want also to try to clarify the status of the code as it applies to those concerned with determining pay and prices. I have the impression that there is still some uncertainty about the matter. I shall then refer to the Prayer of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) to which reference has been made, but I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give the Government's main answer after he has heard my hon. Friend's speech.
Inflation is today a world-wide problem. Prices are now rising at annual rates of some 8 to 9 per cent in almost all advanced industrial countries. These countries buy from us, they sell to us, and we compete with them both by selling in third markets and in buying food and raw materials from the world's primary producers. It follows inexorably that our economy cannot be insulated from the effects of such general price inflation; and, in particular, we cannot insulate ourselves from movements in world commodity prices. Despite all this, we are entitled to make the claim that our policy for fighting inflation in Britain not only has made our position a good deal better than it would otherwise have been without the policy, but has so far produced


results which compare favourably with those in other industrial countries.
Our policy has been based on the principle of seeking to control those prices which lie within our own control, and seeking to limit the impact of those price rises that are outwith our control. That has been the policy during the standstill and that is the policy embodied in this code. It was, incidentally, also the policy of the Labour Government when they were responsible for these matters, though they did not have to grapple with a rate of inflation of commodity prices such as we have seen in recent months.
When we introduced the standstill last November the worldwide inflation in the prices of many important commodities was on an accelerating upward trend. During the standstill we applied strict controls to the prices of all goods manufactured and processed in the United Kingdom, including processed foods. Although in the first four months of the standstill from November to March—the latest date for which we have figures— the rise in the retail price index was 2·4 per cent., two-thirds of this was in the food sector, including the seasonal increases on certain fresh foods which always occur in the winter months. If we exclude food, we see that the index rose by only four-fifths of 1 per cent. in those four months. This is equivalent to an annual rate of increase of less than 2½ per cent. By comparison retail prices generally were going up at an annual rate over 9 per cent in the four months before the standstill; and with earnings increasing at 15 to 16 per cent. over a year earlier we faced the chilling prospect of a price inflation rising into double figures. Moreover, when considering results during phase 1 it is right to remember that they were achieved during a period when manufacturers' costs were rising rapidly and they had to face the effect of the many substantial pay increases which took effect before the standstill.
When we compare these results with those in other countries during this period our success is reinforced. The most recent estimates published by the OECD show that, whereas in the year to October last our rise in prices put us near the top of the inflation league, since October only two other advanced industrial countries have done better

than us. Moreover, one of those was France, where substantial cuts in indirect taxation were made in December. Without these tax cuts, French inflation would have been higher than ours. So it is nonsense to claim as some do that stage 1 has been a farce. On the contrary, it has been remarkably successful.
Against that background, I now wish to turn to the code itself as embodied in this order.
The code is inevitably a complicated document, though nothing like as complicated as the American code was. I therefore propose, in the light of the House's earlier discussion—the matter has been discussed on several occasions—to concentrate on the important changes which there have been between the Green Paper and the final version of the code as it appears in the order. These have in the main occurred in the prices section: the January White Paper contained much more detail on the treatment of pay during stage 2 because of the need to give sufficient guidance to allow collective bargaining to recommence. Nevertheless, there are one or two points in the pay section which I should like to draw to the House's attention.
The £1 plus 4 per cent. limit and the £250 a year maximum limit for individuals remain. These are key features of the pay policy which will provide a larger relative increase for low-paid groups. Within particular groups the freedom for negotiators to give extra help to the lower-paid is reinforced by the individual limit. In addition, this has been presented in the new code in a way which we hope will be more helpful to those concerned with negotiations. Paragraphs 117 and 118 explain how the pay limit should be calculated and suggest examples of alternative methods where this method cannot be followed precisely.
The remaining changes in the pay code have been designed to ensure that pay control applies equitably, and I will give-the House some of the more important examples of this. The provisions on piecework and payment by results have been clarified. The principle which we have adopted is that increases in pay under such schemes are not to count against the pay limit if, and only if, they arise under the terms of schemes in operation before


the standstill and from direct and measurable contributions by the employees concerned to increased output. The same applies to commission payments and increases in pay under any arrangements linked to payments by results. It is the fairest principle which could be adopted for this limited period of phase 2.
Both during the tripartite talks last year and during our subsequent consultations on the code there was general agreement that bogus productivity schemes had been a major loophole in past periods of pay restraint. This is because of the difficulty of ensuring that if there is a major change in the system of payment the same level of earnings corresponds to the same level of output. Therefore, the code provides that only increases in pay under existing payments by results or productivity schemes should be allowed outside the pay limits. We shall of course be ready and willing to discuss future policy on productivity schemes with both sides of industry.
It also became clear during our consultations that the proposals for increments set out in the Green Paper were too wide and might be liable to abuse. The code now says that, if they are not to count against the pay limits, increments must be within a predetermined range or scale and must conform to certain other detailed criteria. I must make it clear that this is not, as some have suggested, a return to the distinction drawn in the standstill between systems with fixed regular increments of the type common in the public sector and other systems. It represents simply a tightening of the much looser formula which was contained in paragraph 102 of the code published in the Green Paper.
Finally, paragraph 113 has been added to the code to prevent settlements made after 1st April from being made retrospective to a date during the standstill period. This again has been introduced to achieve equity. It preserves equity between groups of workers in this category and those who have had pay increases deferred until the end of the standstill which would otherwise have come into operation during the standstill.
As I said earlier, the changes in the prices section have been rather more widespread. However in practice they

do not amount to any significant relaxation in the Government's original proposals. The key principles underlying the strict régime of price controls have not been changed. The Green Paper laid down two main régimes appropriate respectively for manufacturers and for distributors. In the manufacturing and service sector the Green Paper provided that prices could be increased only in line with strictly defined allowable cost increases and that half of any increase in allowable costs was to be absorbed by the firms concerned to ensure that consumers benefited from increases in productivity. In addition, prices should be reduced where allowable costs fell.
In the case of distributors the control was to be exercised by holding their gross percentage margins. In addition, and as a back-up to the more direct controls over prices, the Green Paper provided that there should be an over-riding requirement that net profit margins should not exceed the average of the best two of the previous five years.
Turning to the code in the order now before us, all these elements remain, modified only to a limited extent to ensure greater equity and more effective operation and to give fuller recognition to the need pressed upon us from both sides to encourage investment.
The major change which has been made to ensure that the code operates more equitably has been that relating to the productivity deduction. The Green Paper proposed that enterprises should absorb 50 percent. of allowable labour cost increases. This was one of the points about which a number of hon. Members felt most concerned during our discussions in March on the Green Paper. After consultation with those interests concerned, it was agree that where—we were thinking especially of service industries—labour costs exceeded 35 percent. of total costs a reduced productivity offset would apply on a sliding scale to ensure that these industries were not treated more harshly than those where labour costs were a lower proportion of total costs. There again, there has been a change in the definition of allowable costs to include certain, but by no means all, bought-in services. This was made because it would have been unfair, especially to certain sectors of industry


depending heavily on bought-in services, to exclude such costs as transport, contract maintenance, which is increasingly important in process industries, and the hire of equipment, all of which may be important elements in total costs.

Mr. Orme: The Chief Secretary is giving us all this paraphernalia about the control of prices. But why is it that despite all these controls there is such a tremendous increase in prices occurring in the shops? It affects food, we have just had a petrol increase, and now there is to be an effect on hotel charges for this year, among many other factors. If one goes into a shop one hears constant complaints from people about the weekly increase in prices. What the Chief Secretary is saying means nothing in terms of what is happening in reality.

Mr. Jenkin: I believe that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I referred to the pattern of the movement of inflation during the standstill period. I indicated that two-thirds of the rise in the price index during the standstill period was attributable to matters which were outside the control of this country—imported food prices, seasonal food prices and so on. Only four-fifths of 1 per cent. of the rise in the retail price index has been due to prices within our control. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may refer, for instance, to the petrol position, about which the hon. Gentleman has just spoken.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am a little mystified about this point In the block of flats where I live in London I am told that I have to pay so much per month for VAT which I did not pay before. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how that has come about as a result of prices outside the control of this country?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has been present during many of our debates on VAT. He knows that there have been many changes in prices, with some up and some down and many others staying the same. There is no reason why the introduction of VAT should have had any substantial effect on the general level of prices. Of course some services which hitherto were not taxed are now being taxed. Many goods which were taxed at a high rate are now taxed at a much

lower rate, and prices have been reduced accordingly.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: There is some need for further clarification here. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the prices to which he has referred as going up by four-fifths of I per cent. do not include food and imported commodities? Does he realise that he is saying that the four-fifths of 1 per cent. covers only prices which do not include food and do not include imports and that, in fact, the four-fifths of 1 pet cent. applies to a small range of products only?

Mr. Jenkin: I excluded only food.

Mr. Huckfield: What about rents?

Mr. Jenkin: Over the past four months industry has had to absorb considerably increased prices of commodities. This factor has not been reflected in prices in the shops because of the controls in force.
The other group of important changes since the Green Paper relates to investment. We have always recognised that the maintenance of a high level of investment was important in sustaining the growth in the economy. The code reflects that belief fully.
The circumstances in which the Price Commission can recognise the special needs of investment have been extended. In particular, the requirement to reduce prices if increased turnover lowers unit costs has been dropped. That was widely criticised as being directly opposed to the encouragement of investment. The Price Commission will have discretion to modify the application of the allowable cost increase rules and the application of the net profit margin if their application would deny a company funds essential for investment or would deter it from making the investment by reducing the prospective rate of return to an un-acceptably low level. Rising profits from higher turnover will provide resources for investment, and, in the main, business men base investment decisions on a long-term view. Here the key to confidence in the longer term is the prospect that inflation will be successfully controlled and that the growth rate of the economy will be maintained.
Those are the main changes in the code from the version in the Green Paper.
On pay, the code allows levels of increase which are by no means ungenerous compared with past experience, though rightly a good deal lower than the wildly inflationary settlements which were becoming the pattern during the summer and autumn of last year. For prices, the régime is stricter than anything attempted before. This is essential if the policy as a whole is to be acceptable to the main body of wage and salary earners. But it is also sustainable by industry and commerce, because the policy is being operated in an atmosphere of growth and expansion.
It cannot be stressed too often that the code does not put an upper limit on profits as such. It is profit margins which are subject to the reference level of the best two of the last five years. There is nothing in the code to prevent any firm expanding its business and so increasing the profits that it earns.— [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) applauds that as much as I do.
The Government are determined to maintain the growth of the economy, and this will of itself do more to ensure the success of our counter-inflation policy than any other single step we are taking.
I should like to mention the status of the code. The exchanges in the House on Monday after the statement on petrol prices by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that there still seems to be some doubt in the minds of some hon. Members, particularly about the status of the code in relation to the smaller firms which are entitled to determine pay and to fix prices without having to get the prior consent of the Pay Board or the Price Commission.
It may be helpful if I spell out the position again, because it is important. The Act provides that it is the duty of the board and the commission to have regard to the code in operating the pay and price controls. However, the preamble to the code makes it clear— Articles 1 and 2 of the order—that the code is addressed to all those concerned with the determination of pay and prices and that they should have regard to it.
It is these final words which appear to have caused the difficulty. I say again

—it was said often enough during the passage of the Bill upstairs, as the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) will recall—that to fail to observe the code does not of itself constitute an offence. It is right that this should be made clear. There must be no doubt about it. That can only arise for a small firm when one of the agencies makes an order or serves a notice under Sections 6 or 7 of the Counter-Inflation Act.
For firms which have to pre-notify —the largest firms—the agencies will have an opportunity in advance to consider whether the proposed increases conform with the code. Those which do not have to pre-notify are free to go ahead and implement their increases, but they are expected to do so only in conformity with the code. If a firm which does not have to pre-notify makes a price increase which does not conform with the code, it puts itself at risk, because the agencies could subsequently issue an order or notice to ensure compliance with the code. If the order or notice were not then complied with that would constitute an offence. Until that happens no offence is committed. I want to make that clear because it is important.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will an order be made retrospective?

Mr. Jenkin: There is power—this is not always possible—in the case of a price increase to make an order or notice retrospective and to order repayment.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: My hon. Friend referred to confusion on this point among hon. Members. I suggest that the confusion seems to extend to the Price Commission itself. Is my hon. Friend aware that on Sunday the Price Commission was reported as having stated that garages that put up prices on that day were acting illegally? Will he ensure that the Price Commission does not in future make statements of that kind for which it has no authority whatsoever?

Mr. Jenkin: I did not hear that broadcast, because I was with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in Luxembourg. I will see that my hon. Friend's point is drawn to the attention of the Price Commission. It may be that there was some misunderstanding. I am


sure that the members of the Price Commission are well aware of the position as I have just put it to the House.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is possible for these orders to be retrospective. How can that be? Is he suggesting that sales are recorded in a book? How do we find out who bought what at what time? How can it be retrospective?

Mr. Jenkin: I should qualify that by saying "where practicable ". One can imagine a situation where an identifiable product—for example, a machine tool-has been sold by a machine tool manufacturer in circumstances which would amount to a breach of the code. There would be no difficulty about the manufacturer making a repayment if subsequently a notice or order were issued staling that he had to reduce his price. Clearly, there are practical limitations on what can be done. I hope that I have made the position clear on the status of the policy.
In devising the policy we recognised that it was not only undesirable but totally impossible to try to impose a tight statutory control on each and every transaction in the economy. The system that we have established therefore concentrates primarily on the largest firms, in the knowledge—this is borne out by the American stage 2 experience—that if these firms are strictly controlled competition will ensure that this restraint is reflected more widely through the economy. The code is also there to guide the smaller firms, and in the last resort they can be required to conform.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I must press the hon. Gentleman again. What about the situation of those garages which last week, knowing that the price of petrol was to go up at the weekend deliberately bought additional stocks of petrol and oil at the old prices and put an extra penny a gallon on petrol on Sunday? That situation will happen again and again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out, how are we to know when they bought in their stocks?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has asked a detailed question which falls squarely within the remit of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of Stale for

Trade and Industry, so I will leave him to deal with it. I believe that he intends to refer to some of the points which have been made about the petrol and oil situation. The hon. Gentleman will get a better answer from my hon. Friend than from me.
I turn now to the Counter-Inflation (Notification of Increases in Prices and Charges) Order, which is the subject of a Prayer by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). This order gives effect to the arrangements for the pre-notification of proposed price increases outlined in Section 5 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 5267. The requirements are defined mainly in terms of the value of sales in the domestic market in the last completed year of account. Where an enterprise forms part of a larger group its sales will be aggregated within the sales of the group as a whole. Certain prices and charges, notably those relating to exports, are excluded. Manufacturers with domestic sales exceeding £50 million and service enterprises with sales in excess of £20 million are the major pre-notifying enterprises, and about 180 firms are likely to be covered.
In addition, the order specifies 39 enterprises which either have a relatively large share of the market in which they operate or are of special importance in the market for particular goods of interest to the consumer. These are required to pre-notify, as are the four clearing banks. Wholesalers, distributors and retailers are not required to pre-notify proposed price increases, but they will be required to make quarterly reports and to keep records as specified in a separate information order which has been published.
I do not wish to say anything more about the notification order. I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friends may say about the order should they be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Biffen: May I ask my hon. Friend to take this opportunity to indicate whether an order has yet been made specifying the requirements on the category 2 companies mentioned in paragraph 7 of Command 5205? Will he also indicate whether the House will have an opportunity to discuss that document, which will be of no less importance than the order we are now discussing?

Mr. Jenkin: Offhand, I am unable to give my hon. Friend an answer, but I will see that he gets an answer before the end of the debate.
Both these orders are essential components of the counter-inflation machinery. In the code we have devised rules for stage 2 for both pay and prices which, though detailed, are basically fair—fair to producers, fair to distributors, fair to employees and fair to consumers. Of course, all right-minded people wish that none of this was necessary. Of course, many dislike the intrusion into their freedom of action which the policy represents. But it is increasingly clear that the great majority of the people of Britain support the policy.
"Reluctant and resentful acquiescence" on the part of some is probably a fair description of their attitude, but it is the acquiescence that is crucial, and acquiescence or consent, which is probably the word that is used more often, has always been an important element in the democratic process.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman see this code as a permanent feature of his Government's policy?

Mr. Jenkin: It has been made clear over and over again from this Dispatch Box that this is a code for stage 2 and that stage 3 will begin in October or thereabouts. Consultations will take place on stage 3, and we hope that all sides of industry will participate. Consent is an important element in the democratic process, and this policy undoubtedly has consent. If some give it resentfully and reluctantly, I ask them to bear in mind the appalling alternative of an uncontrolled inflation with all the injustice and hardship which it brings in its train.
I believe that the country recognises that at this time, even with all its anomalies and illogicalities—and I admit that they are bound to exist—a statutory policy is right and necessary. I believe, too, that the country recognises that we have striven to be fair, and I feel sure that most people realise that a policy of counter-inflation must apply to pay as well as to prices. The Opposition are seeking to pretend that that is not so, but in their hearts most of them know it to be true.
While there will always be arguments about the details, the principles of the code and of the counter-inflation policy enjoy far more support than the Labour Party is willing to admit, and because the code is both fair and necessary I ask the House to support the order.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: This short debate is the second example this week of the undemocratic process by which the Government's prices and incomes policy is being implemented. The first example was the series of questions and answers on Monday to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when it was made clear that the answers about the increase in petrol prices were considered unsatisfactory by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It should have been possible for that matter to be the subject of a specific debate and vote, as such matters were in the days of the prices and incomes policy of the Labour Government.
This debate is a further example of that undemocratic process, because although we have before us the question of giving final approval to a code consisting of 153 paragraphs, many of them of great significance to the community, there is time for only one short debate covering the whole subject matter. Indeed, we are taking another order with this one. There is to be no opportunity for a separate decision.
It is possible for hon. Members to approach this brief debate in various ways. The Chief Secretary approached it mainly by giving explanations of the minute details in which the final version of the code differs from the draft version. Some Government Members will want to take up the time of the House with special pleading for vested interests which are close to their hearts. My brief contribution will be along different lines.
We have the opportunity today to consider where we stand about a month after the ending of the freeze on incomes and a couple of days after the end of the "freeze' on prices, and to discuss the way in which this set of rules is likely to work between now and the autumn.
The Chief Secretary gave the House a rosy picture of the increase in prices during the period from November to March. I am sure that the House came to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman had been highly selective in his figures, first, because he excluded food, which is the most important item in the family budget, and, secondly, because he concentrated on the items controlled by the freeze powers, many of which will be the subject of applications for price increases now and in the coming weeks and which are bound to increase to a greater extent than they were allowed to do during the freeze.
Anyone taking an objective view of the price situation now—of the way in which prices have developed during the last few months and the way in which they are likely to develop between now and the autumn—is bound to come to the conclusion that the Government's estimates of a few months ago have been knocked sideways and that the price explosion is greater, and will in future be greater, than anything that Ministers were suggesting when these policies were first brought before the House.
The Economist of 21st April said:
By next November 6th, therefore, apart from fringe benefits and drift, nobody will have a money income that is more than about 8 per cent. above what it was exactly a year ago. The Government had been hoping that by this anniversary, in the week after stage three is due to start, retail prices would be only 5-6 per cent. above their level a year before, so that people would feel that they had continued to have some rise in real earnings. It is now clear that they will not … British retail prices by next November will still be around 8 pet cent. higher than a year before.
Whether or not that forecast of a price level of about 8 pet cent. higher than a year ago is a good one, I do not know. Looking at the situation, admittedly on incomplete evidence, my guess is that the price level next November will be more than 8 pet cent. higher than it was a year before then. But even if we take that as a likely figure it is clear that the Government's own objectives for price stability have already been upset. They have been upset by developments in the last few months and a likely continuation of those developments into the coming months. Perhaps I may mention just a few of them.
First, during the so-called freeze, since November food prices have risen by about 8 per cent., with a further increase

to come. Secondly, during this period there has been a continuing rise in housing costs, in the form of house and land prices, mortgages, rates and rents. Due to the Government's own legislation, rents have deliberately been forced above the level at which they would otherwise have been. There were compulsory rent increases last October and in April, and there is to be another increase next October. Thirdly, in the last six months there has been an increase of about 20 pet cent. in the cost of imported materials and food, and much of this increased cost has still to be passed on to the consumer.
The Chief Secretary fairly said that inflation was a world-wide disease and that no Government could insulate themselves from this process. If that is so—and I am sure that it is—no political party has the right, at an election, to claim that it will reduce prices at a stroke. When we deal with price increases, therefore, we are dealing with increases which are only partly within Government control. I am seeking to give a complete picture of the trend.
Fourthly, we have had the surrender of the Government to the EEC on the crucial question of steel prices. This is bound to lead to increased costs throughout the whole of industry, and is bound to affect the prices of goods of all kinds. Fifthly, we have had the statement from the Price Commission this week, as it begins its new duties, that it now has about 80 applications in the pipeline for price increases and that, of course, is only a beginning. Those applications relate only to the 177 major companies which are bound to seek approval in advance. They do not apply to the other increases of the very much larger number of companies to which the Chief Secretary referred at the end of his speech. In addition, new applications are coming along all the time.
In the Evening Standard tonight I read that British Rail is to apply for a 5 pet cent. increase in fares, and that there are likely to be applications from the coal, gas and electricity industries. It is clear that the increase in petrol prices approved a few days ago was only the beginning of a long list of increases, many of which will have multiplier effects and will affect the cost of living in the months ahead.
The position can be summarised, therefore, as one in which retail prices will


have risen more than the Government estimated during the 12 months of the freeze plus phase 2, to an extent at least equal to if not more than the rise in incomes during that year. By the autumn, the whole policy will be seen, if it is not already so regarded, as a failure in terms of prices, because the Government can no longer use the trade unions as a scapegoat. It will have been a period in which incomes were held effectively to the limits of the policy while prices were not. The Labour Party has always suggested that the policy would bear effectively on incomes but not on prices.
I want to explain what worries me most about the position of incomes as it will develop in the next few months against the background of rising prices. The Chief Secretary was wrong in suggesting that the Opposition have said they could have a counter-inflation policy without any form of income restraint. We have not done that. The hon. Gentleman has heard us time and time again in debates in the House and in Standing Committee refer to the need for a voluntary incomes policy and the case for such a policy, which we believe would be practical given the right background of other policies with it. The Chief Secretary must not suggest that we have ever tried to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I actually used the word "control". I said that it was impossible to have an effective counter-inflation policy which sought to control prices but not incomes.

Mr. Prentice: If I misheard the Chief Secretary to any extent I apologise, but the impression given by Conservative spokesmen and certain newspapers is that we are trying to dodge the issue. We say that the requirements of an incomes policy are different from the requirements of a price policy, because the nature of the problem is different.

Mr. Orme: I hope that my right hon. Friend, who I am sure does not wish to mislead the House, will refer to the TUC-Labour Party agreement on prices and incomes. It does not specify that we should have an incomes policy. Surely my right hon. Friend does not want to mislead the House. We talk about

prices and about getting a correct climate, but the agreement does not mention an incomes policy. [Laughter.]

Mr. Jenkin: Who needs enemies with friends like that?

Mr. Prentice: What many of us have made clear and what was made clear in the presentation of that policy by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and by Mr. Vic Feather, speaking on behalf of the TUC, was that if the policy set out in that document were pursued by a Government it would be possible for the TUC to pursue an incomes policy which would have a reasonable chance of being accepted by the unions and would involve that measure of restraint which would help towards a solution of the problems. No one is suggesting, or could suggest, that a counter-inflation policy must not include an approach to incomes.
Experience in this country and abroad proves that a successful incomes policy is not provided by statutory powers alone, that the whole incomes problem is so complex and that there are so many variations of the ways in which wages, salaries and other incomes are arrived at, that it has a chance of success only if it has a measure of good will and voluntary co-operation behind it. Voluntary co-operation is more important than statutory powers.
I wish to reiterate what I have said in previous debates—and experience is bearing it out—that the real weakness of the £1 plus 4 percent. formula is that it contains no chance of flexibility and no chance of making adjustments such as are needed by a modern industrial society. There are three examples of this. The formula contains nothing to benefit the lower-paid. In spite of the lip service which Ministers keep paying to the lower-paid, the simple fact about the formula is that it means a smaller increase for this category of workers than for the higher-paid. The application of this formula across the board will widen and not narrow the differentials.
The second weakness of the formula is that it contains no provision for those large groups of workers whose pay has always been based on comparability with other forms of employment. I believe that the betrayal of the Civil Service by


the Government is likely permanently to have damaged relations with the public service. There is a sense of betrayal and resentment among civil servants which I believe will assume a permanent nature.
The third weakness is the complete failure of the formula to make any provision for productivity deals or to measure changes in working practice which might lead to higher productivity. Many of the cases of a few weeks ago about which there was the greatest controversy —some of which cases led to industrial action, in the gas and other industries— were cases in which there had been considerable improvements in productivity over a period and the workers had made sacrifices and major adjustments to their working practices with the promise from their employers and unions that the benefit would be passed on in the form of higher incomes. What worries me is the possible permanent effect of what the Government are doing. Given the 12-months' period of the freeze plus phase 2, if there is no upward adjustment of incomes for productivity arrangements, except within the narrow limits provided, I wonder whether the Government will not inflict permanent damage on progress towards productivity in British industry.

Mr. Atkinson: We should make it brutally clear how we see the Government's policy at the moment. It is a policy aimed directly at a wage cut. As Ministers have said and as my right hon. Friend reiterated once or twice, unless someone has a take-home pay increase this year of not less than 8½ per cent. that person is bound to be worse off and will therefore suffer a wage cut. Under the terms of the policy it is not possible for a worker to have a take-home pay increase of anything like 8½ per cent. Will my hon. Friend confirm that?

Mr. Prentice: The arithmetic of the matter cannot be worked out until the end of the period. However, it looks as if average increases in salary will be under 8 per cent. The figure most quoted has been 7·8 per cent. For the reasons I gave earlier, price increases are likely to be greater than that, and for that reason my hon. Friend is probably right.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend give way again? I know that time is getting on, but some of us will be

unable to get into the debate at all. The point is that unless gross pay increases by 12 per cent. at least it will not be possible to get an increase of 8½ per cent. in take-home pay.

Mr. Prentice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining my point.

Mr. Atkinson: It needs a bloody hammer to get it in.

Mr. Prentice: The danger in the Government's attitude—certainly the attitude expressed by the Secretary of State for Employment and, to some extent, the Prime Minister—is their dangerous tendency towards self-congratulation, on the ground that their policies have now been accepted, that all is well, that everything can settle down, and that they can sit back and enjoy what they consider to be the success of those policies.
I am bound to warn the Government— in the words of an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—that acceptance and acquiescence are two different things. We now have acquiescence only in the sense that working people are beginning to recognise that the Government's policy does not allow employers to pay over the limits. Working people recognise that as a fact of life with which they will have to live for the time being. That is not consent.
It should further be recognised that prices between now and November will be going up and that the anomalies and injustices of the pay aspect will become more and more resented as time goes on. Resentment is building up. There will be an explosion in the autumn and a great deal of industrial unrest. There will, perhaps, be greater industrial unrest than there has already been under the Government. That is saying quite a lot, because industrial relations under this Government have been worse than under any Government since the war. Certainly the pressures are building up, and they will continue to do so between now and November.
An explosion of industrial unrest in the autumn can be avoided only if between now and then the Government are able to secure agreed policies with the TUC, the CBI and the people. Such policies will not be made to work by small groups of


leaders meeting together. They can work only if they are recognised by working men and women as reasonable and fair.
Last year, during the joint talks, the Government failed. They tried to blame other parties, when the blame belonged fairly and squarely with them. In the last few days the newspapers have been full of stories about the resumption of the talks. I am bound to say that we might have heard something about that in the House. The Chief Secretary might have had something to say about that matter this evening. It is not good enough to read in the newspapers that things are likely to happen and to hear nothing said about them in the House.
I hope and believe that the talks can be resumed. I emphasise that if there is to be any chance of success the Government must seriously consider the reasons for last year's failure. They must learn the lessons and take a different line on several basic points in the talks this summer. Those points have been put from the Opposition Dispatch Box and from the Opposition benches many times in recent months. I shall not take the time of the House by reiterating all of them.
I shall mention three matters, because they seem to be key points. First, the Government must reverse every policy which has been leading to higher prices. It is not a tenable proposition that the Government should ask for the people's co-operation in fighting inflation if they still pursue policies that lead to inflation. The most important example is the Housing Finance Act. The Government should freeze all further increases under that Act.
Secondly, the Government must have a more convincing policy of price control, including some control of fresh food prices. It must include, in time, the use of selective subsidies to try to keep prices increases within a reasonable range. No one can pretend that fresh food prices can be stabilised completely in an unstable world. What the Opposition have said consistently is that the Government should make an effort and that the use of subsidies should be a weapon that the Government should not reject.
Thirdly, if there is to be a deal it can best be reinforced by the Government announcing either the repeal or the drastic

amendment of the Industrial Relations Act. Yesterday, listening to the Secretary of State for Employment, I was appalled at the extent to which he still seems completely insensitive to the deeply offensive nature of the Act to trade unionists. He has been doing his job long enough to be aware of that. It is not good enough for him and his colleagues to sit back and say, "We will consider amendments put by other people." The vital fact is that the Act has damaged the country. It was the Government's Act, and the Government must be responsible. They must take the lead to get rid of it.
We shall divide the House, as we have done at every stage of the counter-inflation legislation. We shall do so because we want a stronger counter-inflation policy. We do not think that this one measures up. We are prepared, as a party with strong links with the trade union movement, to call on that movement to make its own contribution towards fighting inflation. The Government cannot sit back and ask other people to do that job. Their policies must measure up—and the policies contained in the code which we are discussing manifestly do not measure up—to what is needed.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not move his Prayer. He can discuss it with the motion on the order.

Mr. Ridley: That is why I raised a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How is the Prayer to be put if I am not to move it now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member can move it formally subsequently and divide the House if he wishes.

Mr. Ridley: In that case I shall not move it.
I complain strongly that we should have the curious situation of discussing two orders at once in limited time. They are orders of great importance. The situation does not meet entirely the spirit of the undertakings given by my right hon.


Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in Committee that adequate time would be provided for the House to debate these important orders.
It seems that the Prayer, which I have not moved, would properly form the subject of a separate debate, with a vote, if necessary, at the end. I hope that my speech will not sound too confused. I am forced to discuss both orders in one speech. I shall take up some of the wider points which the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has raised at the end of my speech.
It is worth recording that it is a great pity that we cannot amend the order which my hon. Friend moved. If ever there was a document of great and detailed importance which should be amended, it is the code. I hope, that in any future legislation on this subject, codes of this sort will be subject to amendment in Committee. I have some strong criticisms of the code, even though it is a great improvement on the draft which was first put before us.
Depreciation in the prices section is mentioned once but not in connection with prices. There is no reason for manufacturers not to increase depreciation. Many of them want to do so in any case in order to reduce their profit margins, to increase allowable costs and to justify higher profits if they wish to make them. Depreciation is a loophole to the directors. When we have inflationary times, there is a case for faster depreciation. That so great an element in the costs of an industrial company should be left out of the code altogether is an obvious loophole, and I hope that the industrial companies will take it in order to secure their profitability as best they can against the extraordinary hurdles put up in the prices part of the code.
My second point of criticism concerns the whole question of profit margin control. How is a company to know what profits it is going to make during a coming year? The idea that in some way it will be able to convince the Price Commission that it is either going to make inadequate or too great profits is incredible, especially when the operation has to be done in advance. It can always, of course, greatly affect the likely profit margin by changing its depreciation or

by changing the stocks it holds. Indeed, no one will know what profit has actually been achieved until perhaps a year or 18 months after the time when it comes before the Price Commission. This gives the commission an impossible job.
My next point of criticism concerns paragraph 29—the "profitability" paragraph. The formula laid down in it is quite arbitrary. Although I acknowledge that it is a great improvement on the original 50 per cent., it will mean that companies which, given a particular year, do not make an increase in productivity will be penalised, whereas those which might make enormous increases in productivity through making very big investments will not get the full benefit of those big investments either. I think that this is where the whole of the prices side founders on the question of trying to force companies to pass back the benefit of higher productivity, which is really higher investment, not to the shareholders or to the workers but to the consumers. I hope that the Government will think again about paragraph 29 and try to get it right.
Curiously, the Government rely upon competition. As my hon. Friend said, he believes that if he can control the prices of the leaders the rest of the economy will have to fall into line on prices. That is the biggest declaration of faith in the value of competition I have heard for some time. Yet, at the same time, we are here denying competition any part through controls on prices based on arbitrary figures about what will happen to productivity—a process which must in the end become completely unfair.
The 4 per cent. plus £1 per week is being taken as the starting point in all wage negotiations, and it is not possible to purchase any improvements in working practices or productivity for this increase of 7·8 per cent., or however it works out, because every union knows that it has to be granted anyway. In fact, productivity increases are diminishing in so far as they are to do with labour agreements as opposed to capital investment. It is becoming extremely difficult to get further co-operation from workers because they know that they will get 4 per cent. plus £1 and that there is no need to sell anything for it.
The policy of holding down the large firms' wages is to some extent succeeding, but what is developing now, and is very worrying, is that smaller firms which believe they can get away without being caught by the Pay Board are putting up their wages considerably and poaching labour, particularly skilled labour, off the big firms—quite properly from their point of view—and this will hurt some of the big firms very much.
There was a case the other day of a Midlands company which gave a £4 a week rise backdated to last September, which was way above the criterion laid down in the White Paper. I have here a letter from a firm in the North of England, which must remain anonymous. It says:
There are undoubtedly now however a number of aggressive organisations who, in my view, are deliberately taking advantage of the current situation by making offers approaching 20 per cent. to some classes of employee knowing full well that the existing employer is inhibited from meeting this offer.
This is becoming widespread. I could give other examples.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: What part of the country?

Mr. Ridley: It is in an intermediate area. I cannot tell my hon. Friend more than that. It is not in the overheated South. This situation is going to develop into one of gross unfairness and to loss of labour in certain vital sectors of industry. It is the way in which higher earnings, even with the 8 per cent. allowed for in the policy, are actually taking place.
I turn now to the Notification of Increases in Prices and Charges Order, which is the subject of my motion. Article 8 gives the information which is required to be put before the Price Commission by companies which have to notify. I ask myself how long it will take to put together all this information. Not only does it require many details of costs and sales and future predictions, but it requires future projections of profit margins which will involve a great deal of complicated work. When one comes to the thought of how the Price Commission is to check whether any of the information is accurate, the mind boggles at the bureaucratic morass into which we are likely to get.
Article 9 gives the Price Commission 42 days to consider whether a price increase should be granted. Here I criticise Article 9 very strongly. It gives the Price Commission power to ask for ever more supplementary information. If after eight weeks it has not delivered its verdict, it can do no more and the price increase is not granted. Therefore, simply by prevaricating and asking for ever more complex information, the commission can deny the firm the right to what may be a perfectly justifiable increase.
Article 10 gives the Price Commission power to revoke permission for a price increase or to demand some of it back if after a period of time the net profit levels turn of to be excessive. This kind of power goes too wide and too far and is too irresponsive to Parliament to be granted in a statutory instrument of this sort. I would like the Government to look at Article 10 very carefully to see whether they do not agree that to give the commission power to come back at any stage in the future and say "We have decided that we were wrong in allowing you a price increase because you have made too much profit, so you must give us back that profit or reduce your price", is going beyond what is reasonable in this strange world that we are entering.
The particular difficulty concerning this order is the food industry, because a very large number of companies are scheduled and also because of the companies with over £50 million turnover in food processing. They are dealing with perishable goods which fluctuate highly and quickly on market price. The idea that it is possible to wait for eight weeks for an answer, having assembled all this information, and put it before the Prices Commission, by which time the price of the raw material has gone up further—or has gone down—does not take account of the fact that prices are fluctuating considerably month by month. To use this complicated machinery will cause grievous difficulties in the food processing industry. If any given price of a foodstuff were to fall it would be with extreme reluctance that that processor would admit it and would be allowed to make a reduction because he would know full well the problem of getting the price up again if prices rose later.
We have these many complicated problems. I am inclined to think that the price control will be extremely ineffective because the machinery is so complex and difficult. As my hon. Friend said, in the first four months prices rose by 2·4 per cent. That means an annual rate of about 7·2 per cent. I believe, with the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, that that is a beginning and that there will be a further escalation in prices. I cannot accept that we can blandly declare that increasing prices caused by overseas suppliers' prices rising has nothing to do with us, that it is outside the control of the Government and that we are innocent of what is happening.
Why are overseas prices rising? They are rising because the value of the pound is sinking relative to other currencies. In some cases, in Germany, in France and in Japan, it has fallen by a considerable amount. The value is sinking because we are increasing the money supply at home at such an alarming rate that foreigners do not want to hold pounds. This is a consequence of the long period of overspending which is coming through in the form of prices. It is not entirely the cause; there are other causes. One is that of joining the European Economic Community, which I personally supported. I always expected that food prices would rise as a result and I never believed that it would be possible to stop that because it was a conscious act of policy from which we knew we would have some suffering, but the sinking of the value of the pound was also due to domestic financial policies.
There is no way of stopping inflation because, as the right hon. Member for East Ham, North has said, prices will go on rising and wages cannot be contained within the formula. That may be being done at present but if prices accelerate it will be more difficult to contain wages and we shall have more increases in wages and prices during the coming year than we had in the past year. We must look to the economic causes of present inflation. We can no longer blame the trade unions; in my humble submission we can no longer blame foreigners either.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I can certainly agree with the last words of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). He has given

a detailed explanation of what is happening and what will happen over prices. This we have to face. Only last week when I was in a shop an assistant said to me "Isn't it terrible the way prices are increasing"—she meant prices in her shop—"week after week, but wages are frozen?"
One can pick out selected products or commodities and bring them within the purview of the Price Commission, or one can exclude them, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said with reference to steel, or petrol and allow increases to take place. Commodities can be brought into a survey, and if food is allowed to go free from that survey and the prices of other commodities are allowed, particularly on the retail side, to be continually increased, no control can bring them within the purview of the commission.
If the Price Commission goes on in the lamentable way in which it has started, I can see the day coming when the present chairman will write a book like that written by Mr. Aubrey Jones about the Prices and Incomes Board, showing that everybody was wrong but Mr. Aubrey Jones—"There goes Jesus Christ; everyone else was to blame." If he had only been allowed a free hand, he would have solved all our problems——

Mr. Heffer: We all know what happened to Jesus Christ.

Mr. Orme: I do not know whether Sir Frank Figgures will handle things in the same way, but if he makes as much of a botch of things as he has done on petrol prices, he will be able to write the same sort of book. [Laughter.] We can laugh about these things, but we are dealing with factors in our society affecting the living standards of millions of people.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury talked about wage control evasion. I do not doubt that some employers, faced with the increased heat in the economy and the shortage of skilled labour, may be offering more than the norm of £1 plus 4 per cent. But this does not apply to the vast majority of wage earners. It is easy for an employer to hide behind the Government's norm.
The Chief Secretary said that unless price increases are referred to the commission the law is not broken. The same would apply, I assume, to wage increases if they are not referred to the Pay Board, but employers do not interpret the law in that way. To my knowledge, in many sectors of British industry the wage limit is being rigidly applied; this is what is aggravating the dissatisfaction of the workers.
However we argue about the May Day protest, there is no doubt that millions of key workers demonstrated against the Government's policy—

Mr. John Pardoe: One and a half million.

Mr. Orme: Take those 1½ million out of the economy and there would be no British economy. I would guess that more than 1½ million were involved. When one talks about engineers, building workers, miners, dockers and railway workers, one is talking about the workers on whom the economy basically depends.
I have disagreed with Vic Feather over many things that he has said about the May Day stoppage, but I agree with him that that demonstration was the beginning and not the end of the protest against the Government. As Hugh Scanlon said at the engineering conference of my union only a fortnight ago, the Government may feel that they have had some victories, but they cannot really be proud of victories over hospital and gas workers who leaned over backwards to ensure that they did not put people in real distress—an act of unselfishness which damaged their fight. They put the nation first. This unselfishness is shown by many groups of British workers who are so often criticised.
Hugh Scanlon said that the Government might congratulate themselves on their victories, but ultimately—with the present price increases and the growing aggravation over food prices, VAT, the second stage of the Housing Finance Act, the continued escalation of land prices and the extra cost of mortgages—they will see what the response of working people will be.
British workers are not easily moved. They do not demonstrate at the drop of a hat. They need conviction that the

policy being advocated by their own unions and by the trade union movement is correct. But when they fight, as was demonstrated by the National Union of Mineworkers last year, they mean business.
The present policy of the Government is inequitable because we know that it is not being applied across the board. What about self-employed workers? We raised this in the Committee on many occasions. What about the people who are getting all sorts of other fees? I know from the people who approach me that there are large sectors and groups of people who are completely oblivious of the fact that the Government have a policy in regard to incomes or prices. It is being ignored. But certain key sectors of the economy, certain groups of key workers, are trapped and are having to pay the price.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has said, workers getting the maximum of around 7½ per cent. increase on their gross pay, when they have had the reductions and are left with their take-home pay, are faced with a continuous increase in prices. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury underlined the point, as did the Minister himself, that these price increases are going to continue, because of many outside circumstances— world conditions, the floating of the pound, and many other factors. If they continue, workers will not be maintaining their present standards. They are going to take a reduction in real earnings this year. While the economy is going to start to increase, there is going to be growth and the profit factor in our economy is going to improve, the workers who have produced this wealth are going to experience really severe attacks upon their standards.
Mixing with these workers yesterday, as I did in Manchester, with engineering workers, building workers, and so on, it was clear that they were not taking a selfish attitude and saying that they wanted an increase irrespective of what the hospital workers or the gas workers got. If they could see some kind of climate in which those workers were getting an increase, as the miners and other groups of workers have shown in the past, they would be prepared to co-operate.
I come now to the point made by my right hon. Friend on the question of an incomes policy and where the Labour Party stands in regard to this. We are continually told that we are not viable unless we have an incomes policy. I have read learned dissertations by my noble friends Lord Kennet and Lord Chalfont in another place—experienced trade unionists in their own right, no doubt—about the necessity for an incomes policy. We are told that the Labour Party is naked without it, and so on.
That is an absolute fallacy, and I think that is the central point. In this regard perhaps my right hon. Friend and myself are not so far away on the ultimate point that, instead of starting with an incomes policy, what has to be done to get an equitable society is to start at the other end, not by exhortation, not by crippling legislation, but by example. One does not have a Housing Finance Act, one does not have prices rocketing, one does not have rents rocketing, one does not have land prices rocketing, and one does not have mortgage rates or travel costs rising. One needs a free health service, with the abolition of prescription charges and everything that goes with them, a climate in which the necessities of our society are available. That might be anathema to many Conservative Members, but that is where I start from in the argument, seeking to create a just society, redistributing the wealth in our society and some of the basic economic ownership, so that we can plan the type of society I am talking about. Then the Government can start telling workers "We can balance your earnings and your value in society, X against Y and Y against Z, and so on". Then they can start talking about people's contributions.
Despite all the paraphernalia of the Price Commission and the Pay Board, we are in a mixed economy. Many Conservative Members want a free market economy, and object when they see piffling obstructions, mere irritants that do nothing but make the whole matter more difficult. Certain groups of workers are trapped and penalised. We experienced that situation under a Labour Government. That is what creates the anger. Bitterness and frustration are caused when we see all sorts of things

going wrong in society and those that create the wealth being penalised—not only not being allowed to receive their just rewards but being held back, taking a reduction in real earnings. That is what many millions of workers will do this year. That is the sort of climate the Government have created.
The Government failed with the freeze. They hoped that in phase 2 they could, bring—not coerce—the TUC into an agreement with a form of respectability, creating a corporate approach, with the trade unions recognising their place but the Government's policy continuing. I hope that the trade unions will talk fully and frankly with the Government but that they are not prepared to accept anything less than the minimum that has already been laid down—the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act and action on housing, rents and food.
I cannot see the Government agreeing to that minimum under any circumstances, because the Prime Minister said at the end of the Downing Street talks "Get off the grass. These are political issues. This is what the Government were elected for, and we shall decide these policies". If that is so, the trade unions have nothing to gain. They must fight not only industrially but politically and get over the message that there are alternative policies.
That is why I believe that the TUC-Labour Party economic statement is a sound basis, a springboard for a Labour Government. That is in the future. We are talking now about the Government's policy, which is in disarray, which is unacceptable to millions, and which, in consequence, must be defeated. I hope that the Opposition will take the first steps tonight by voting against it.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: Connoisseurs of these debates have by now learned to expect a fair degree of discussion of the Housing Finance Act, the Industrial Relations Act, and much other legislation that has characterised the programme of the present administration.
The faintly disagreeable fact remains that this evening we are strictly here as law makers on the two orders that we are debating and, much as I am tempted to follow the hon. Member for Salford, West


(Mr. Orme), I think that it is the character of the two orders that so fully deserves the time and attention of the House.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in regretting that the debate must proceed in tandem. As my name appears, together with that of my hon. Friend, in praying against Statutory Instrument No. 664—the Counter-Inflation (Notification of Increases in Prices and Charges) Order —it is to that aspect of the debate that I shall direct most of my remarks. I shall make one comment in respect of what was said by my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary about the Price and Pay Code, which is incorporated in the first order.
It is dangerous ground when a Government commend a statutory instrument as some kind of popular self-executing piece of law. It will not work out that way. We must ask ourselves only this question: if this is to be treated as self-executing law by the commercial and industrial citizenry throughout the country, how many copies are popularly available in the post offices? The answer is, "Absolutely none". The order is strictly for the specialists—for the accountants, and for the company secretaries. It is not capable of ordinary popular interpretation, and we deceive ourselves if we suggest otherwise.
I turn to the order against which my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and myself, and others of my hon. Friends, are praying. I say straight away to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) that of course we have, as he put it, a vested interest. It is a vested interest that there shall be freedom under the law. That is no bad vested interest to proclaim. To react against random and arbitrary power is to react in the tradition which I should have thought would encompass many who are proud to have served in the Labour movement.
I shall confine my remarks to three aspects of the statutory instrument. First, have we much of an idea how it will work in practice? I want to refer to a topic that was mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, and subsequently taken up by others, including the hon. Member for Salford,

West, namely, the increase in steel prices. The prices of those steel products covered by the Treaty of Paris are allowed to move without let or hindrance, in terms of United Kingdom legislation. What happens when those Treaty of Paris steel products are subject to very modest subsequent engineering work—perhaps a degree of cold drawing or rolling—and become Treaty of Rome steel products or Treaty of Rome engineering products? From that moment onwards they fall within the notification procedure.
If the company has a turnover in excess of £50 million per annum as prescribed in the order the full notification procedures have to be undertaken, whereas the identical products of a smaller company are not subject to such procedures. We are dealing with a degree of economic and industrial activity which barely transforms or alters the character of the product. Almost certainly 80 per cent. of the cost is contained in the raw material—the Treaty of Paris-designated steel products.
In a highly volatile and changing market situation such as we now have, with a strong industrial demand and an identifiable shortage in many sectors of the steel and engineering industries, the degree of delay content within these differential notification procedures is something which will have substantial and serious industrial consequences for a limited number of companies. Their mere limitation in numbers does not absolve us from seeking some kind of justice in the administration of this system.
I turn now to education. I would like to know whether this applies to school fees. Yesterday's Financial Times said:
About 350 independent fee-paying schools have been allowed to increase their fees by between 5 per cent. and 50 per cent.
It goes on:
Asked why Mrs. Thatcher had allowed increases as high as 50 per cent. in some cases, a Department of Education spokesman said that some of the schools had not increased their fees for three or four years.
So be it. But we are not here to pass value judgments on private education and those who like to take advantage of it; we are here to inquire whether there is any legal requirement on schools to


obtain permission from the Government in the terms set out and quoted by the Department of Education spokesman.
We have only to look at Article 1 of Statutory Instrument No. 664 to see that a provider of services—God knows this cannot be considered a manufacturing activity! —means:
a person who carries on in the course of business activities falling within minimum list headings 864 and 865 of Order XXIV or within Order XXV of the Standard Industrial Classification;
I have to inform the House that education clearly falls within list heading 872 of Order XXVI of the Standard Industrial Classification. It does not fall within the notification procedures with which we are concerned. Will someone somewhere in this administration make sure that one Government Department knows exactly what law is being applied by another Government Department? It is not too much to ask.

Mr. Frank Allaun: It is.

Mr. Biffen: If it is, it is perhaps one of the permanent features of all Governments and applies without consideration of party affiliation. We ought to have some regard for our craftsmanship as lawmakers. We ought to see that the law that is made in this Parliament is being administered as such. Once we surrender to administrative agencies—and I would have thought that our experience with the Price Commission in the last day or two would have underlined this—we surrender something vital to this institution.
My third point is one of the greatest topicality. It relates to the notification procedure as it applies to something that we can identify as a popular issue, namely, the price of bread. We are assured—and I believe this to be wholly accurate—that an increase in the price of bread is imminent. Indeed, there have been inspired suggestions that the Price Commission has already confirmed that an increase may proceed.
We might as well ask ourselves, as we are entitled to under the order, how that will work out, bearing in mind our experience with petrol price increases. Let us take Spillers. That firm will have notified the price increase, as it is required to under the citation contained in paragraph 1 of a "manufacturer", and the price increased is allowed. Suppose the

bread is sold through Sainsbury's. Is Sainsbury's then supposed to obtain permission for the prices it will charge? Sainsbury's, as a major retailer with a substantial turnover—the figures are elaborated in paragraph 14 of the White Paper "The Programme for Controlling Inflation: The Second Stage"—would be subject to the so-called margins control. Let us suppose that the bread is sold in a small corner shop. The answer surely must be that it is not even subject to margins control.
It is as well for us to understand this, because there was confusion on Monday, caused by the widespread belief that garages were subject to the same kind of control as were petrol companies. Although garages, ironically, are considered as carrying on a service activity which falls within the Standard Industrial Classification Order XXVI and therefore, in selling petrol, come under the notification procedures, whereas those who sell bread do not, it is evident that the scale of the operation completely alters the degree of control.
The Explanatory Note to Statutory Instrument No. 664—which is the only part which anyone who is not a lawyer or an accountant can reasonably understand— reads:
Subject to specified exemptions, all manufacturing enterprises and all service enterprises having sales in the United Kingdom market exceeding respectively £50 million and £20 million together with the four largest banks are required to notify all such increases.
How many companies are involved? A figure of 177 has been quoted, but I have never seen a list of the companies involved. May not there be placed in the Library a list of companies, showing the volume and expected application of price increases that will derive from this control? We know how many there are to process the information in the Price Commission, but unless and until we can get some concept of the actual volume of price increase notifications which will be pouring into the Price Commission we cannot even begin to have a proper working concept of the effectiveness of this policy.
It touches upon credibility, and as we proceed towards stage 3—whether stage 3 is to be more relaxed or more stringent —the question will be whether it will be more fairly and effectively implemented


than was stage 2, and whether it will take more account of the working realities of the industrial and commercial world in which we live.
Distasteful as it may be to Tribune members of the Labour Party, and perhaps to some Conservatives, we have a mixed economy, and what the House will have to discover—and fairly soon, if it wants to hold its good reputation—is just how practical, against the working realities of today, are the policies that are elaborated in the orders.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I agree with the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that many of us who intend to vote for the code—and indeed many who do not intend to vote for it—feel that the notification procedures and a large part of the structure of the prices part of the policy are likely to be ineffective. The trouble is that if the Government wanted to control prices they would not be congratulating themselves, as the Chief Secretary did in his speech today, on the fact that this code is not as complicated as was the American code. If the code had to cover all the anomalies which the hon. Member for Oswestry mentioned, in a destructive but effective speech, it would have to be a great deal more complicated than it now is.
Quite apart from the question whether this code is more complicated than the American code, I hope that it will be a great deal more effective. We now have the figures showing the rate of inflation in the United States for the first three months of this year. President Nixon expected an annual inflation rate of about 2½ per cent. But in the first three months of the year America has had an inflation rate of about 7 per cent. Therefore, Her Majesty's Government are not alone in making optimistic forecasts about rates of inflation, because the President of the United States has done exactly the same.
Any suggestion that the House or any Government of this country can control prices effectively by direct intervention on them is dangerous, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Oswestry. The Government want to be seen to be fair. Therefore, they feel that they have to say that they are controlling prices as

vehemently as they are controlling incomes. That is the sole reason for Part I of the code set out on pages 2 to 20. It is what politicians feel is expected of them, but I doubt whether the Government believe that they can control prices with this policy.
In a free society there is always a way round price control. If that were not the case, it would lead to shortages and we should see queues, rationing and all the paraphernalia that we experienced in the war. The price control set out in Part I will be ineffective, but it will probably be as effective as it can be—and indeed as effective as any price controls can be. It will be very much better if Government spokesmen said to the country "Prices cannot be controlled more than to a certain extent." Any talk of controlling prices at a stroke, as was promised by the Prime Minister in an unfortunate off-the-cuff remark which he must have come to regret, is absolute nonsense.
What can be done about the situation? I want to question the Government's competition policy. The Government undoubtedly believe in a competition policy because during the last election they said that such a policy would be the main weapon by which they would effect a reduction of price increases.
I turn to one aspect on which I should like to have a reply from the Government. It concerns the matter of petrol prices.
There may be very good reasons why the companies need to put up their petrol prices. We all know about the world shortage of energy resources, about some American oil companies having to ration their clients, and even about some American airlines having to ground their aircraft for this reason. But the Government should have used the companies' desire and need for higher prices to enforce a tough and sensible competition policy. They should have told the companies that they could not have their price increase until they had satisfied the Government that they had abided, and were abiding, by the letter and spirit of the undertakings that they gave the Government following the recommendations of the 1965 Monopolies Commission's report. The fact is that these companies have been allowed by the Government to put up their prices when the Government had the power to stop


them doing so, yet the companies every day are side-stepping and evading in a disgraceful manner the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission's report and the undertakings that they gave.
I give just one instance of that. It relates to the number of petrol stations which should come under the direct ownership of the oil companies. In 1965 the Monopolies Commission reported that the proportion of petrol stations under the direct ownership of the companies was not at that time at such a level as to be against the interests of the consumer. It went on to say that if the proportion increased significantly, then it would work against the interests of the consumer.
I want to know from the Under-Secretary what rôle his Department fulfils in following through such a report. Does it keep a continuing watch on the situation in an industry on which the Monopolies Commission has reported in order to ensure that this kind of evasion does not take place? We have very little on which to go in the Government's competition policy. We know very little about the criteria that they use in referring matters to the Monopolies Commission. I have no doubt that hon. Members will be very pleased to see exactly what criteria will be used in deciding whether to refer the Slater Walker-Hill Samuel merger to it.
The other action that the Government can take is on subsidies. But I ask the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice): how much? How do any Government limit the sum once they have embarked on a policy of subsidies? Whose pockets will be invaded to pay for the subsidies? They will have to be raised in general taxation, and, through our system of taxation, general taxation largely comes out of the pockets of ordinary average industrial earners. If the Opposition argue for open-ended subsidies or even subsidies limited to fresh foodstuffs, they must be prepared to say how much they will cost and how much they are prepared to spend, quite apart from the source from which it is to come.
The third alternative, which I maintain is probably the best coupled with the competition policy, is for the Government to state categorically that they

are prepared to enact legislation which will protect wages, pensions, family allowances and all welfare benefits against the rise in the price of food. As everyone says in these debates, food is of the essence. It is so vitally important in the family budget that if we can only protect people against the rise in the price of food by automatically increasing wages and welfare benefits in line with the effect of the price increase in food on the wages of the average industrial earner we shall have bought the conditions in which a sane prices and incomes policy can work.
On the provisions about prices, therefore, I am extremely sceptical about whether they can work, as I have always been——

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The hon. Gentleman has just used the words
… conditions in which a sane prices and incomes policy can work.
Are we to gather, therefore, that to his mind this is an insane prices and incomes policy? Is that the policy which he intends to support in the Division Lobby?

Mr. Pardoe: I am going into the Lobby to support, as I have throughout the Committee stage and in other debates on these matters, the only prices and incomes policy we have before us, which is the Government's policy. It is neither more insane nor more sane than was the prices and incomes policy of the Labour Government which I also supported. It depends on the politics of the next Government whether we have a sane or insane prices and incomes policy in future.
On pay the Government's policy has been effective so far, but I do not think that it will be very effective in future. The Chief Secretary made play of the changes in the methods by which the lower-paid can be looked after in these negotiations. I am not impressed. I do not believe that within the bargaining set out in the code the lower-paid can be effectively helped. I do not believe that people can be effectively helped by means of anything called free collective bargaining, even with an upper limit of this kind. The only way to protect the lower-paid is through a minimum earnings guarantee of about two-thirds of average industrial earnings, a regional


employment premium or some regional subsidy on earnings, and the Government each year fixing a maximum earnings rise and policing it by means of fiscal penalties.
Despite my reservations about the code, I shall vote for it tonight as I did when it first came before us. I have always said that we must have a prices and incomes policy. Phase 3 will be the most important part of that policy. I hope that the Government are working towards a long-term strategy for prices and incomes which does not, heaven help us, include what the right hon. Member for East Ham, North euphemistically refers to as a voluntary incomes policy. There ain't no such beast.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has, as he frequently reminds us, always been consistent in these matters. Tonight, he carried his enthusiasm for the legal paraphernalia for the so-called prices and incomes policy several stages further. Rather than advocating the subsidisation of food, over which I share his objections, he favours some kind of legal guarantee of recoupment to those in receipt of up to average earnings for increases in food prices. If this guarantee is to be honoured and financed by employers, I can think of a number of areas in which the unemployment rate will rise sharply. If, on the other hand, it is to be financed by the taxpayer, I am not clear that we should stop at food. We should soon find that there were many other things. This is in pattern with what the hon. Gentleman has always argued, but he must appreciate that I view these matters from a different standpoint.
I reiterate what my hon. Friends the Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said about the timing and nature of the debate. I hope that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will be drawn to the fact that the debate hardly fulfils the undertakings that we were given at numerous stages in our discussions on this legislation. To have a tandem debate about the code and an order against which some of my hon. Friends and I have prayed is a thoroughly

unsatisfactory way of proceeding. If the Government want to carry legislation of this type through the House they must provide adequate time for it to be discussed. In my view, we have not got that tonight.
My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, in his opening remarks, told us about the success of the freeze period in abating the rate of inflation. The Government are entitled to claim that much, and perhaps rather more. I hope my hon. Friend will recollect that in days gone by we used to say that a freeze would work but that it was like damming a flood with a dam of ice, and that when the spring came the flood would be the worse for the dam that we had imposed. The real test lies not in what has happened so far but in what is to happen in the months ahead.
I want to address a few remarks, first, to the order against which some of my hon. Friends and I have prayed—the Counter-Inflation (Notification of Increases in Prices and Charges) Order 1973. I want particularly to draw the attention of the House to Part I of Schedule 1, which lists 33 companies which have been picked out for special favour. They are the companies whose sales do not achieve £50 million a year but which have nevertheless been informed that they will be expected to give the Price Commission prior notification of any price increases in respect of individual named products.
I should not dream of suggesting that my right hon. and hon. Friends have picked these names out of a hat, but I confess that the logic of the selection was not immediately apparent to me. That being so, I made one or two inquiries, and I am grateful to the Library for the help which I have received from it. The Library tells me that it was informed this afternoon by the Department of Trade and Industry that these companies were those which either held 50 per cent. of the market for the named product—which is fair enough—or where the product was particularly sensitive. I hope that in answering the debate my hon. Friend will tell us what "sensitive" means.
Why, for example, are non-electrical carpet sweepers sensitive, but electric carpet sweepers, presumably, are not? Why, for example, is Teacher (Distillers) Ltd.—a well-known and successful


blender of Scotch whisky—sensitive, but Messrs Bell, another well-known and successful blender of Scotch whisky, which claims to have a dominant share of the domestic market in Scotland for its excellent product, is non-sensitive?
Again, what purpose is achieved by saying that Harp Lager Ltd. is to give prior notification of any increase in the price of its lager when, owing to the adjudication of the Monopolies Commission, every tenanted house in the land which sells Harp lager is entitled to charge whatever price it chooses without in any sense infringing the law?
There are many other examples which one could quote from this rather bizarre list, and I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us more about it when he replies to the debate.
Secondly, on the issue of pricing, we ought to watch very closely what is happening in the nationalised industries. The scale of taxpayer subsidisation necessitated by the observance, first of price restraint, then of the freeze, and now of phase 2, is growing more and more dramatic day by day. The British Steel Corporation has estimated that this is costing it £400 million and that any question of its being able to finance even half its future investment programme from retained resources is out.
Those are serious propositions, but a rather more interesting point arises from a letter which I received from my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry on the subject of the effect of price restraint on the gas and electricity industries. I had queried with him how exactly the taxpayer subsidy was to be distributed between the area boards, and he said, in reply:
 'Both the gas industry and the electricity industry have argued that compensation"—
that is compensation for price increases forgone—
should be on the basis of revenue forgone. But we were unable to accept this principle because to do so would have invited claims for compensation from firms in the private sector which had followed the CBI initiative.
My hon. Friend concluded by saying:
In all the circumstances I was forced, albeit most reluctantly, to conclude that actual deficits must be the basis for calculating compensation both for the industry as a whole and for individual Area Boards.

In other words, we are rewarding the least efficient on the basis of their inefficiency. That is not totally out of conformity with some other aspects of this policy.
I wish to refer to the activities of the Pay Board. Since we discussed the draft code we know something more about its nature. We know, for instance, which individuals will dominate its activities. We know, for instance, that Mr. Derek Robinson has been appointed Deputy Chairman of the Pay Board, with special responsibility for advising the Government on relativities. What are Mr. Derek Robinson's views on relativities? I wonder whether the Government know—because they should. He has expressed his views clearly.
At the time of the first Wilberforce inquiry in 1971, Mr. Robinson gave evidence to that body in January of that year. He had interesting things to say about relativities. He said:
What I think is extremely difficult or impossible is to seek to have a policy accepted by trade unions which would say ' Do not deal with this particular wage claim on its merits but deal with it from the viewpoint of the repercussions it might have on some subsequent wage claims which might not possess the same merits.' … This is a view of wage determination that I think no trade union movement can accept.
He went on:
I believe that this would be contrary to the national interest.
Does Mr. Robinson still think that it would be contrary to the national interest, because if he does he will find himself facing something of a conflict of interest when he carries out his responsibilities in these matters.
Another aspect of the Pay Board's activities deserves closer scrutiny—and I am glad to see two of my hon. Friends from the Department of Employment listening to the debate. I was intrigued to see a report in The Times about an industrial dispute involving 203 toolmakers at GEC's Coventry plant. These toolmakers —members of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers—have rejected an offer from the management which was in line with the £1 plus 4 per cent. formula under phase 2. The report says:
They would be prepared to accept a fairly small increase at the outset with each of the succeeding rises getting larger, to culminate in a total increase of £5·76 … They argue that the initial increases would be well within the


Phase Two ceiling and that by the time the one-year agreement expired and the final payment was due, Phase Two would have ended. The Department of Employment has given the company some guidance, and the management claims that this makes it clear that the arrangement would not be permissible under the present legislation.
May we be told precisely under which section of the legislation that agreement would be rendered not permissible? I have no doubt that there must be a clear answer to that, but I confess that in my investigations of the legislation I have been unable to come up with it.
I am not so deeply concerned as, perhaps, some other hon. Members about the inherent contradictions and implausibilities of the codes which we are approving tonight. As the summer wears on they will gradually fritter away and collapse in the face of the real world, which is catching up with us very quickly. We are seeing the rapid appearance of labour shortages in numerous industries. As those shortages develop, the real course of pay negotiations will be affected much more by competition for labour.
I was interested by some of the comments made by Mr. Brian Tritton, which were reported yesterday in The Times. Mr. Tritton was formerly with the Commission on Industrial Relations. Talking about the shortage of labour in the building industry he said:
It has also made nonsense of the Government's control of incomes because the escalation of payments does not seem to have been affected by the Government's measures, apparently continuing unchecked throughout the period of the standstill…. One large site in north-west London advertised for bricklayers at £1·15 an hour in mid-January. By the end of that month the advertised rate was £1·20. By the beginning of April it was £1·25, and the current level is £1·35.
Was Mr. Derek Robinson on the site, examining the relativities in that case? He would presumably have his time cut out if that was what he was trying to do.
I have no doubt that we shall give our endorsement to the code and the order. I suppose that some of us will be disturbed by the implications of this legislation and, above all, by the accumulating evidence that neither Departments nor the delegated authorities—the Price Commission and the Pay Board—understand the legislation. Perhaps we can console ourselves with the thought that as labour shortages develop, and as the

economy moves up rapidly—or, as Mr. Michael Clapham said this morning, moves up "like a rocket"—towards full capacity, the attempts to manipulate prices and wages by law will soon fade away in the light of day.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: One of the points which the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) made was precisely the point that I intended to make. I am delighted that he made it. He referred to bricklayers receiving increased payment, but he did not say that the article he referred to points out that that is primarily due to the development of "the lump" in the building industry.
The code is really the green light for self-employment in the building industry and many other industries. Workers who are members of trade unions will have their wages held back because they are bound by national, local or district agreements. They will find that somebody working on the same site or on the next site can totally ignore the national agreement and receive sometimes more than twice their pay. Such workers are not confined by £1 plus 4 per cent. That means utter and complete chaos in industrial relations.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend think that the situation is due to the speculative builders who make 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. profit on any house which they build? That is why builders can afford to give bricklayers that money. The general public, of course, is exploited.

Mr. Heffer: I am certain that high profits are being made by speculative builders. I am not arguing that at present. I am confining my remarks to the code.
The Chief Secretary made an interesting and characteristically smooth speech. His speeches are always smooth. He always glosses over all the problems with which we are faced. He says that all the problems are due to the increased costs of raw materials from abroad, that world prices are to blame. All these things are really responsible for inflation, he says, and he glosses over all the difficulties and ends by saying "What we are doing is fair and equitable." Of course,


it is the very opposite. It is neither fair nor equitable.
If one is a member of a trade union bound by a national agreement, one is caught by the pay policy and confined to the £1 plus 4 per cent., because that is what will be agreed under duress by the union and the employers. It is equally true that where there are highly organised workers so will there be employers who will hide behind the code in order to stop any further increases.
The unorganised, or disorganised, workers in the building industry now total nearly 500,000—a fantastic level. They are supposedly self-employed and will be receiving well above the norm laid down in the code. So the code is neither equitable nor fair. As a result of this policy, there is a complete breakdown in organisation and in industrial relations agreements in the building industry in particular.
One need only look at the realities. If a worker has to meet the rising cost of food, rising council house rents, and the increases brought about by value added tax, it is obvious that if he can see a way out by becoming self-employed and getting above the norm he will take it, unless he is an absolutely dedicated member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians or of the Transport and General Workers Union and will not accept the concept of "labour only". What are the Government going to do about the problem of "the lump"? They cannot do anything about it in relation to the code. They can only deal with it in another direction.
Part 2 of the order applies to
all pay including wages and salaries at whatever level, allowances, payments by results, payments in kind, fringe benefits and lump sums".
Who will determine the lump sum? At what level will it be determined? How can it be determined when an agreement is made by an individual or group of individuals on a particular job on a construction site? It is the biggest hole in the code, and it cannot be plugged unless the question of "the lump" in the building industry is tackled at another level and in a different direction. But we still have to hear whether the Government are prepared to do anything about it. It comes down to the fact that if one

is organised, if one is a member of a union and agrees with proper industrial relations agreements, one is caught by the code, whereas if one is unorganised one can go free.
I shall not go on because my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) wishes to speak, and I understand that the Under-Secretary of State is to speak at 9.45 p.m. [Interruption.] Surely hon. Members opposite would allow time for a colleague to make a brief speech when he has something to say. But I protest against the fact that we have not a full day for debate on this subject. It is wrong that hon. Members, who have many things to say about the code, are having to confine their remarks so much and are unable to develop their arguments fully because of this stupid situation.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: It is difficult to speak at this stage when at least a little of the subject has been covered, but I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for arranging this concession for me.
When the pay code was being debated during an earlier stage of the legislation, I moved two amendments on Report. One dealt with differentials and the other with the worsening of the real value of wages and salaries. Needless to say, those amendments did not succeed, but, quite apart from the merits of the arguments I used on that occasion, I was anxious to limit the influence of the Pay Board and the freedom of the board to please itself in the exercise of its powers. As is often the case—this applies to Governments of all parties—the Minister argued that it was better for the board to have flexibility and as much freedom as possible and not to put a limitation in the statute. I always think that a dangerous argument to be used by any Minister because, when it is used it means that one extra small piece of the powers of this House is eroded away. I wish that there had been much more in the legislation and that far less had been left to the Pay Board which is to operate its vast powers under the pay code.
A second and practical point I make is from an experience known to me in the electricity supply industry. When the


pay code was first issued, it was issued as a consultative document. All and sundry were invited to make their contributions towards its improvement, to make it more acceptable, presumably, and more workable. But I warn hon. Members that one needs to have a long spoon if one is to sup with present Ministers. Trustingly—perhaps too trustingly—my union, the Electrical Power Industry Association, raised the question of shift pay improvements. We also raised the question with the Ministry of night duty hours pay improvements. Those who have any familiarity with the operation of the electricity supply industry will know that night duty call out and shift working are of the greatest importance. I hope that the Undersecretary will take careful note of this, because he is partly responsible for the electricity supply industry. The first draft of the code left these points out in the general phrases which were used. It seemed a reasonable proposition that men in the industry who have to work all night under shift conditions and may be called out in all weathers to put things right after breakdowns should be free to have new scales if need be. But once the subject was mentioned, zealous Government officials took care that any loophole was closed against a concession. My union is feeling sore about this and perhaps wishes that it had not spoken.
The words in the preamble to the order,
… there was consultation before the passing of the Act with representatives of consumers persons experienced in the supply of goods or services, employers and employees",
are something of a deceit, judging from that practical experience. In this legislation, to this Government and this set of Ministers, consultation apparently means taking down the evidence of willing persons who come to help and then using that evidence against them. It does not help the Government to inspire confidence and win friends.

9.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): I shall try to answer as many of the detailed points that have been made in this fairly short debate as I can, but the House will realise that they have ranged over a wide field. One matter which is for the Leader

of the House and not for myself is the linking of the two orders. I will draw to my right hon. Friend's attention both this fact and the complaints about the time allowed, so that he can clearly know the views of my hon. Friends.
It is immensely important to get clear the principles behind the stage 2 control of prices. The general principles relating to prices, outlined in paragraph 3 of the code order, are: to limit the extent to which prices may be increased on account of increased costs, and to secure reductions as a result of reduced costs; to reinforce the control of prices by a control of profit margins while safeguarding investment; and to reinforce the effects of competition and secure its full benefits in the general level of prices. I should have believed that, overall, these were objectives which were generally acceptable to the House.
The code applies, therefore, in some measure, to nearly all goods and services produced, sold and consumed in the United Kingdom. It limits the extent to which prices may be increased and reinforces the control on prices by a control of profit margins. The Price Commission and the Pay Board are required to ensure that it is implemented, and all concerned with the determination of prices must have regard to it.
Unless allowable costs and total costs per unit of output increase, no increase under the code is generally allowed. Profits per unit of output may not be increased except in special circumstances relating to investment or to past reconstruction.
The Government's stage 2 policies do not end with the manufacturer. They extend to virtually all distributors, whether wholesale or retail, and distributors' gross percentage margins must not be increased above the level prevailing in a recent 12-month period. As with manufacturers, there is a back-up control on net profit margins.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) suggested that the whole of the Government's policy on inflation was a fraud. He said it more nicely than that, but that is what he meant. He prayed in aid the Economist. The right hon. Gentleman is usually fair with the House. May I just read to the House the headlines to the article in the


Economist of 28th April 1973. What were they? They were:
It is working.
The Government's stages one and two have brought the rate of inflation in Britain down from one of the highest to one of the lowest in the industrial world.
That is really what we set out to achieve.
Therefore, the main features of the stage 2 controls embodied in Statutory Instrument No. 664 is the pre-notification of price increases by manufacturers and providers of services whose domestic sales —excluding exports, or course—exceed £50 million and £20 million respectively. This means that the approval of the Price Commission is required in respect of price increases covering approximately 50 per cent. of manufactured goods.
At this stage my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked who the companies were and if the House could be informed. I would suggest that I draw the attention of the Chairman of the Price Commission to this request with a view to his publishing this list in his first report to the House.
I think it must be seen that the clear rôle and responsibilities of the Price Commission have been given by the Government in order that the job of ensuring that the provisions of the Price and Pay Code are fully and properly implemented. This is an executive function to be carried out within the quite narrowly defined limits laid down in the code and the associated orders made under the Counter-Inflation Act.
If a proposed price increase meets the conditions set out in the code the commission must approve it and Ministers may not disapprove it. The powers of Ministers are, in fact, only to increase, not to decrease, a price increase that has been allowed by the Commission.
If the policy is to work efficiently and equitably an enterprise must know where it stands, and this is one of the reasons why we have gone into such detail to try to set out the structure of the code in this order. It is still of great importance when one talks about complexity to know that the vast majority of firms within this country want to be able to abide by the code, to use it as a factor so that it can be self-policing. However, the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for

Oswestry that this must be available at every post office or it really is not going to be effective and people are not going to be interested in it is stretching the imagination a little, because most bodies are being advised by their accountants and professional associations as to the way they may be able to react, and should react, to the code.
Therefore, having set quite clear and rigorous policy guidelines and having appointed the Price Commission to ensure that they are followed, the Government propose to let the Price Commission get on with the job that it has been appointed to do.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Fix prices.

Mr. Emery: The factors in the debate which I believe need particular answers are those raised by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, when he was asking about the provision for comparability. As promised in paragraph 33 of Command 5205, the Government have asked the Pay Board to consider and report on the best ways of dealing with the problems of anomalies and relativity. These recommendations will be discussed with both sides of industry with a view to action in stage 3.
In the same way, the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) discussed productivity deductions. The restriction on productivity agreements and productivity reductions is in paragraph 39 of the code. Productivity arrangements were a major loophole in the Labour Government's policy. The Government have decided that they should not be allowed in stage 2. Consequently, we have sought to ensure that a substantial share of the benefits of improved productivity are passed on to the consumers. That means that everybody will benefit. I agree that the arrangements for achieving it are to a certain extent arbitrary. But further consideration will be given to the whole subject before we reach stage 3.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury suggested that the food industry could not stand delays of eight weeks on application to the Price Commission. The normal period


for the Price Commission to deal with applications is 28 days. Paragraph 200 of the White Paper on the operation of stage 2 makes it clear that an application may be treated as approved unless the commission informs the applicant within 28 days from its receipt either that it will not approve the proposals or that the application is still under consideration. In the latter case, the exception, the consideration of the decision can be extended for a further 14 days. In paragraph 201 we made it clear that for particular products it would be open to the commission to make special arrangements for special decisions.
My hon. Friend said that there was nothing about depreciation in the prices section of the code. Depreciation is not mentioned in the allowable costs section because it is not an allowable cost. In the consultations carried out by the Government there was little pressure for it to be included. Paragraph 51 of the code refers to accepting acceptable accounting principles consistently applied by the enterprise concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend will not continue to hold the view that that gives a big loophole that people could try to exploit.
The power in article 10 which so concerned my hon. Friend is needed to allow the Price Commission to correct an approval based on incorrect information, whether innocently provided or not. Without that power the commission would be powerless to require a reduction when the error came to light.
In answer to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry, where there were unfair and discriminatory effects on pre-notification of the Treaty of Paris the position is exactly the same as on the pre-notification of the 28 days to which I have already referred.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke about "the lump". As is stated in paragraph 224 of the White Paper, a special construction panel is being established to consider how the requirements of the code can most effectively be applied to special problems of the construction industry, and "the lump" will be dealt with specifically there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry asked about school fees. The increases announced recently by the Department of Education and Science were authorised under stage 1. The educational services are not subject to pre-notification under Statutory Instrument No. 664, but they are subject to the code unless they are non-profit-making organisations covered by paragraphs 98 to 100 of the code.

Mr. Biffen: Is my hon. Friend saying that any school can increase its fees without notifying the Department of Education and Science?

Mr. Emery: I am saying that there is no pre-notification requirement in the order. Therefore, any educational establishment carries on, as with anybody else, there is no pre-notification, but it must abide by the provision of the code.
Paragraph 69 of the code deals with distributors' stocks of petrol and requires distributors to adhere to the practice that they have followed consistently for pricing purposes and at the relevant gross percentage margin. If a distributor applies price increases to stocks bought at old prices, and if this leads to an increase in the gross percentage margin, the Price Commission can require him to reduce prices if the matter is brought specifically to the commission's attention.
Therefore, in conclusion——

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: If my hon. Friend is coming to a conclusion, may I ask him to deal in slightly more detail than he has so far with the order as opposed to the Price and Pay Code, which we are supposed to be discussing also, and in particular with the way in which firms selected for special treatment have been selected?

Mr. Emery: May I deal with one point at a time. I thought that it was probably for the convenience of the House that I should draw my speech to a conclusion.
Nobody would suggest that Part I of the schedule—I least of all—is a comprehensive list. However, it covers a considerable number of firms which have a price leadership position in the whole of the United Kingdom, not just in Scotland, and it is to try to ensure that in these areas it is clear that the Government are paying specific interest to price rises that might


be brought about by these firms which are in a position of price leadership.
If it is for the convenience of the House, I will return to my conclusion by saying that the introduction of these powers and their use within the Counter-Inflation Act are not the way in which the Government wish to proceed.

Mr. Palmer: To assist the hon. Gentleman, I was obliged to condense my remarks into a very few moments. Will he deal with the substantial point I raised about the rather curious methods used by his Department in consulting the trade unions?

Mr. Emery: I do not consider that there has been an instance as curious as the hon. Gentleman suggests. He knows me well enough to know that if he has a

specific point on this that he wishes to raise with me, I shall be only too delighted to meet him to discuss it in detail.

For the third time let me return to my conclusion. The introduction of these powers and their use in the Counter-Inflation Act are not the way in which the Government would wish to proceed. The Government wanted, and still want, to deal with inflation by agreement with industry and the trade unions. If this proves impossible, we believe that countering inflation is so important that we cannot abrogate our responsibilities. We are, therefore, prepared to act, and for this reason I ask for the support of my hon. Friends tonight.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 285. Noes 258.

Division No. 118.]
AYES
[10.6 p.m


Adley, Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Atkins, Humphrey
Dean, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Awdry, Daniel
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Haselhurst, Alan


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dixon, Plers
Havers, Sir Michael


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hawkins, Paul


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Hay, John


Batsford, Brian
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hayhoe, Barney


Beamish, Col. Sit Tufton
Dykes, Hugh
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bell, Ronald
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hicks, Robert


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Higgins, Terence L.


Benyon, W.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hiley, Joseph


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Emery, Peter
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Biffen, John
Eyre, Raginaid
Holland, Philip


Biggs-Davison, John
Farr, John
Holt, Miss Mary


Blaker, Peter
Fell, Anthony
Hooson, Emlyn


Body, Richard
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hordern, Peter


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Fidler, Michael
Hornby, Richard


Bossom, Sir Clive
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Bowden, Andrew
Fisher, Nigel (Surblton)
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bray, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunt, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fortescue, Tim
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Foster, Sir John
Iremonger, T. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fowler, Norman
James, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fox, Marcus
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jessel, Toby


Buck, Antony
Fry, Peter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Burden, F. A.
Gardner, Edward
Jopling, Michael


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith 


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Chapman, Sydney
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kilfedder, James


Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, Marcus


Churchill, W. S.
Goodhew, Victor
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Gorst, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gower, Raymond
Kinsey, J. R.


Cockeram, Eric
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Kitson, Timothy


Cooke, Robert
Gray, Hamish
Knox, David


Coombs, Derek
Green, Alan
Lambton, Lord


Cooper, A. E.
Grieve, Percy
Lamont, Norman


Cordle, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lane, David


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Grylls, Michael
Le Merchant, Spencer


Costain, A. P.
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Critchley, Julian
Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Crouch, David
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Longden, Sir Gilbert




Loveridge, John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Sproat, lain


Luce, R. N.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pardoe, John
Steel, David


MacArthur, Ian
Parkinson, Cecil
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


McCrindle, R. A.
Peel, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


McLaren, Martin
Percival, Ian
Stokes, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sutcliffe, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner
Tapsell, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Madden, Martin
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Madel, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J.R. M.L.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Maginnis, John E.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tebbit, Norman


Marten, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Temple, John M.


Mather, Carol
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Mawby, Ray
Redmond, Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Tilney, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Trefford, Dr. Anthony


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trew, Peter


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Miscampbell, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ridsdale, Julian
Vickers, Dame Joan


Moate, Roger
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Waddington, David


Money, Ernie
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Monro, Hector
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wall, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walters, Dennis


More, Jasper
Rost, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Royle, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Morrison, Charles
St. John-Stevas, Norman
While, Roger (Gravesend)


Mudd, David
Scott, Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Murton, Oscar
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wilkinson, John


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Winterton, Nicholas


Neave, Airey
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Shersby, Michael
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Simeons, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Younger, Hn. George


Orr, Capt L. P. S.
Soref, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Osborn, John
Speed, Keith
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Owen, ldris (Stockport, N.)
Spence, John
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ellis, Tom


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
English, Michael


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Cohen, Stanley
Ewing, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Ashley, Jack
Concannon, J. D.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Ashton, Joe
Conlan, Bernard
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)


Atkinson, Norman
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Barnes, Michael
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fletcher Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Foot, Michael


Baxter, William
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Ford, Ben


Beaney, Alan
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Freeson Reginald


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Davidson, Arthur
Galpern, sir Myer


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Garret, W. E.


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, lfor (Gower)
Ginsburq David (Dewsbury)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Gourlay, Harry


Booth, Albert
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Grant George (Morpeth)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Deakins, Eric
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Bradley, Tom
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dempsey, James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dempsey, James
Hamling, William


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Doig, Peter



Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dormand, J. D.
Hannan, William (G' gow, Maryhill)


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hardy, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Douglas-Mann Bruce
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Driberg, Tom
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hattersley, Roy


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dunn, James A.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dunnett, Jack
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Cant, R. B.
Eadie, Alex
Heffer, Eric S.


Carmichael, Nell
Edelman, Maurice
Horam, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)







Huckfield, Leslie
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rose, Paul B.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Marks, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Marquand, David
Sandelson, Neville


Hughes Roy (Newport)
Marsden, F.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hunter, Adam
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Janner Greville
Mayhew, Christopher
Short, Mrs.Renée (Whampton. N. E.)


Jay, Rt. Hn Douglas
Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Mendelson, John
Silkln, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Mikardo, lan
Sillars, James


John Brynmor
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Milne, Edward
Skinner, Dennis


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Small, William



Molloy, William
Spearing, Nigel


Johnson Walter (Derby. S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stallard, A. W.


Jones Dan (Burnley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Moyle, Roland
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Murray, Ronald King
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Judd, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Strang Gavin


Kaufman, Gerald
Ogden, Eric
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Kelley, Richard
O'Halloran, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Kerr, Russell
O'Malley, Brian
Swain, Thomas


Kinnock, Neil
Oram, Bert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff,.W.)


Lambie, David
Orbach, Maurice
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lamborn, Harry
Orme, Stanley
Tinn, James


Lamond, James
Oswald, Thomas
Tomney, Frank


Latham, Arthur
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Torney, Tom


Lawson, George
Palmer, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Leadbilter, Ted
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Varley, Eric G.


Leonard, Dick
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wainwright, Edwin


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pavitt, Laurie



Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Walden, Brian (B' ham, All Saints)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pendry, Tom
Wallace George


Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, Ernest G.
Watkins David


Loughlin, Charles
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Weitzman David


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Prescott, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Probert, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


McBride, Neil
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


McCartney, Hugh
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


McElhone, Frank
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


McGuire, Michael
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Machin, George
Richard, Ivor
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mackenzie, Gregor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mackie, John
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Woof, Robert


Mackintosh, John P.
Robertson, John (Paisley)



Maclennan, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Mr. John Golding and


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roper, John
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 658), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to move.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Counter-Inflation (Modification of Agricultural Waees Acts) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 646), dated 29th March 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be annulled.
The order to which the Prayer relates is extremely important. This will be the second last opportunity for the House to discuss, in formal debate, an entire section of the Price and Pay Code and practice. The order will remove one of the two remaining elements of the arrangement by which an opportunity is given to the House to discuss the pay of groups of workers at a time when their pay is being rigidly controlled by Government legislation.
If anything shows the injustice and unfairness of the Government's prices and incomes policy it is the treatment of farm workers. We oppose the order because it further extends the injustice that has taken place and because it brings their wages and conditions further under the same policy which has failed signally to protect them as low-wage earners for the past six months, despite the stated policy of the Government about the protection of low-wage earners. It is a policy which has extended discrimination against a group of workers believed by most people in this country to have been discriminated against for long enough.
We must remember the background against which the order is made and the consequences of the Government's policy which it embodies. The policy was said to protect the low-wage earner. Last year, up to the ending of the freeze, the wages of general farm workers in England and Wales were £16·20. In Scotland they were £16·40. Proposals were made last year by both wages boards to bring them up to £19·50 for men, and women's were to be put up from less than £13 a week to £15·60. It was the agreed policy that the increase should take place last year. The workers wanted more. But this was the figure agreed by the farmers and the independent members of the boards.
In Scotland the agreement was made as long ago as May of last year. In other words, we are dealing with an increase which was agreed by the farmers and the independent members of the Scottish board and accepted by the workers as far back as a year ago. It was delayed not because of any statute or any Government control but because it was out of line with general Government policy that two awards should not be made within a period of 12 months.
In October a request was made by the Scottish workers union for an additional 50p, which would have brought them up to the £19·50 level as well. That was turned down by the board on the ground that the general policy of the Government at that time—not a statutory policy —was one of restraint. It was the time of the Downing Street talks. But it was promised that the increase would be implemented in December for Scotland and in January for England and Wales. It was first delayed, then reduced, and then frozen. That is the monstrous history to the background circumstances of one of the lowest-paid groups of workers in the country under this Govenment's policy.
I come now to the background of the industry against which this behaviour was taking place. I am sorry that the Minister himself is not here tonight. With respect to the Under-Secretary of State, on this occasion when we are dealing with the wages and conditions of the people who have made our farming industry prosperous the Minister himself should have been here to defend this policy.
The Minister takes plenty of credit for the prosperity of the industry. Farmers have never had it so good. Certainly that is true of some farmers. At the same time the reason for the right hon. Gentleman's boasts about the industry is the sharp increase that we have seen in farm incomes. According to the annual price review figures of 1971, the estimated increase in farm profits for the year 1970/71 was £80 million, or 14 per cent. That, taken with the estimate in this year's price review for the past year of 12 per cent., makes a total of 26 per cent.
That is not the whole story. The increase of 14 per cent. in the previous year was against the background of an estimate of 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. In other words, the turn-out of the farmers' income was almost double the estimate. Therefore, the 26 per cent. is an underestimate.
Some academic investigations and inquiries, particularly at Exeter and Nottingham, suggest that in some areas the income is much greater. For example, in East Anglia 1971–72, compared with 1970–71, showed an increase, in an analysis of 200 farms, of 103 per cent. in profit. Certainly the 26 per cent. and all the recent studies suggest it is more.
I do not complain. However, I would rather see this increase in prosperity more evenly distributed among farmers and farm workers. What I and farm workers resent bitterly is that their low wages, which helped to create that background of prosperity, and were frozen up to last month, are now to be brought under the Government's new and unjust pay policy.
Farm workers, like other people, have to live. They have to meet the escalating prices which have been taking place. Food and other prices affect farm workers just as much as people in the cities and towns.
I was interested to see in the Sun today the headline,
Food Prices 'Steady for a Year'.
The Minister made that promise. We will remind him of that promise and headline during the remaining months of this year. Farm workers will not be taken in by that headline. They know the industry and what is happening about prices.
Incidentally, although I was unable to be here yesterday, I read a most astonishing report of the apparent joy shown by back-bench Members of the Conservative Party at the statement made by the Minister on his return from Brussels. It was as though the captain had driven his ship firmly up on the rocks and, after two days of diligent effort, had managed to salvage the dinghy, and all the cabin boys were ecstatic at this marvellous piece of agricultural seamanship.
It is unjust that the farm workers, of all people, should have to suffer what is, in effect, a cut in living standards when the products of their labour have been selling at higher and higher prices. The headline to which I referred is astonishing when we consider that since June 1970 prices have risen by more than 30 per cent. In other words, there has been an increase of one-third in three years. I do not know of any period in history when food prices have risen at this rate. If the Minister knows of such an event I should be glad to hear it.
Even more serious and bitter for farm workers is that since their increase, small as it was and insufficient according to their demands—most of us would agree that it was insufficient—was frozen, food prices have been rising even more sharply. For every pound spent on food in November one now has to spend £1·12. That is an increase of 12 per cent.
The rate of increase is now running at 10 times the rate of a year ago. The Minister's figures go back only to March. They are always two months out of date, which is very convenient for him. This is not only serious, but alarming. It is against this background that the farm workers face this control and freeze on their wages. Wages are frozen, but the food prices have exploded. So much for the Government's nonsense about wage-push inflation. Land speculation, housebuilding prices, property investment, and so on, are the real causes of inflation.
The prosperity of the industry demands a new deal for the farm worker. His productivity has earned it. The Government's price review shows an annual productivity increase of 6 per cent. for each of the last 10 years. What other industry can equal that increase in efficiency and productivity? Yet, despite all that, in 1972 farm workers' wages were only 70·4 per cent.—or nearly two-thirds—of the average earnings in manufacturing industry. Because of that the House must understand the bitterness that exists among farm workers about the policy which has been operating and which is to be continued by this order.
Mr. Bottini, the General Secretary of the union, writes to say:
The resentment that our members feel about such legalised banditry"—


he is talking about the freezing of their justly awarded wage increase—
will not be dissolved by the fact that the £3·30 increase, intended by the Agricultural Wages Board to operate from January 22nd, can be paid from April 1st. Our members were disappointed by the inadequacy of the award and the total rejection of our claim for a 40-hour week. Add to this the unprecedented prosperity being enjoyed by the farmers during a period when Government policy has obliged the workers to tighten their belts, and you have all the ingredients of a thoroughly discontented labour force.
That is important for the nation as well as for farm workers, because throughout the 'sixties the industry was losing workers at the rate of about 5 per cent. a year. The industry has made up for the loss of workers by increasing its efficiency, but we are now reaching the state that it is no longer the case that workers leave because of increased efficiency on the farms. They are voting with their feet and moving on to other jobs. For how much longer can the prosperity of the industry continue when its lifeblood is being drained because its workers are being forced to leave to take up other occupations? The Government and the nation must pay attention to those who have contributed so much to the prosperity of the industry over the last few years.
The Agricultural Wages Board is a combination of farm workers, farmers and independent members. Instead of decisions on pay being taken by that board, they are in future to be taken by the Pay Board, which is not even answerable to this House. It is not even fully answerable to a Minister. All the decisions of the Agricultural Wages Board were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Minister had to defend the board's decisions, and the House could take decisions on them. All that is to be swept away under this new procedure. That is why I regard it as serious that the Minister is absent from the debate. This is the last chance that the House is to have to discuss in any meaningful way the wages and conditions of farm workers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): On how many occasions did a senior Minister in the Labour Government reply to Prayers and motions on prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Buchan: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the last occasion on which we took action to remove the right of the House to discuss matters such as this? Whenever a decision on pay was made by the Labour Government, a Minister came to the Dispatch Box to defend it. Poor soul, he was often kicked from one end of the Chamber to the other, but we felt that his presence was a necessary part of the democratic process, and on no occasion did we dispense with the decision of the Agricultural Wages Board.
The hon. Gentleman might like to recall that in 1969 when the Prices and Incomes Board said that the 7 per cent. award granted by the Agricultural Wages Board was double that which was permitted under the regulations the Government decided nevertheless to pay the full amount. Any decision in future will be made by the Pay Board, which is answerable to no one, and an apology from the hon. Gentleman would be useful.
This is the penultimate opportunity for Parliament to discuss wages. The order dealing with teachers' salaries is to be discussed next week. That, then, is the background to the debate.
The General Secretary went on to say in his letter:
A final point of concern to the Union is the further delay that the Pay Board procedure is likely to incur before future farm wages proposals can be implemented. Farm workers have always been sore about the length of time that elapses between the submission of a claim and its operative date. The offending Order "—
I like the word—
now being debated will at best lengthen this period.
So, as the letter says, at best it will delay decisions and at worst it will seek to reduce the value of future proposals made by the Agricultural Wages Board.
The Government's past performance has given us and the farm workers very little confidence. We believe that the Government will take the opportunity to cut down. We shall vote against the order.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has made a weak speech. He has based it on two particular facets. He attacked the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister. Apparently he was


not aware that my right hon. Friend has been on the Continent for several days. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh but the nation now recognises the considerable achievements which my right hon. Friend brought back with him from the Continent yesterday. I am sure that my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate will be more than capable of dealing with the weak and futile arguments deployed so far by the hon. Member.
The hon. Member tried to draw a comparison with the wages policy of the Labour Government. Even his hon. Friends recognised that the Labour Government's wages policy was an utter flop, and the least he says about it the better.

Mr. Bucban: I want to take up the point about the Minister's absence. I was making no imputation about his lack of work. A great deal of effort had to be put in to try to salvage what could be salvaged from the mess the Government have got us into. The important point, however, is whether the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and the Minister who is to reply agree with the headline and the quotation from the Minister's speech yesterday. Do they believe that prices will rise by only 2·5 per cent. as a result of yesterday's decisions? Does the hon. Member think that food prices will remain steady? Let me warn the hon. Member that we shall be keeping a note of his answer.

Mr. Farr: Nothing the hon. Member has said bears any relevance to the order which we are discussing and on which I have questions for my hon. Friend the Minister.
A number of my hon. Friends and I were particularly concerned last autumn, when the freeze was announced, at the position of agricultural employees. They have an unparalleled record of service to the nation. They have been remarkably unmilitant and remarkably efficient. Their record of efficiency is unparalleled by any other section of industry. Therefore, may we be reassured on certain points? May we be told when phase 2 is to end? I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will say she cannot tell us. The order is dependent for its life, once it comes into force, on the length of phase 2. The order says that it will be

effective as long as phase 2 is in operation. We think that it will end in the autumn, but it will be of great help to many people to have a fairly exact idea about when my hon. Friend expects the move out of phase 2 and into phase 3.
Many of the statutory instruments which have been published in recent weeks, including the one to which I referred, No. 661, refer to the modification of the Wages Councils Act, 1959. As many hon. Members will know, the lowest-paid group of workers in Britain are those who are governed by the wages councils. Together they make up a sizable body of employees. It happens that we have not had a debate on wages councils workers. It may be that the Opposition will table a motion later to enable a debate to take place.
I hope that when my hon. Friend replies she will give me some idea of how the mechanism will work. Will the order affect the date of an award? I understand from the instrument that an award can be held up by eight weeks, If at the end of that time there has been no reply from the Pay Board, the wages award will come into effect automatically. Would that mean a further eight weeks' delay in implementing a wages award made by the Agricultural Wages Board? There is nothing in the instrument to say what will be the procedure if the Pay Board, for some reason best known to its experts, finds the recommendation made to it by the Agricultural Wages Board unsatisfactory. It might think it too low or too high.
What is the procedure in that event? Does the board just reject the award or does it make a recommendation about what the level should be? I hope that my hon. Friend will give me some idea of what the result will be if the Pay Board refuses to accept an award.
Will the Pay Board and its experts, when considering the wages of agricultural workers, have special criteria to apply not only to agricultural workers but to workers in other industries such as those covered by wages councils' awards? Many hon. Members think that if the Government's policy of a pay, dividend and price freeze is to receive some general recognition of approval it must not hold back workers at the bottom of the scale; or, if it is to hold them at the


bottom of the scale, it should at least allow them to catch up a little with other groups of workers who often work shorter hours for considerably more pay and work in more attractive conditions. The criteria which will be applied by the Pay Board to an application from some of the big groups of motor company employees for wage increase—for example, from £40 to £45 a week—should not be used when considering an application from agricultural workers and other low-paid workers.
It is ironic, as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West, said, now that the agricultural industry, thanks to expansion and Government policy over the years, is in a position where it is able to afford to pay considerably better wages to agricultural workers, that we should be approving an order which will prevent that payment taking place if it exceeds the criteria within which the Pay Board will work.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the record of service to the nation by the agricultural workers, and I endorse what he said. They have a record of discipline, of public service and of productivity which has seen output per man more than double since the war. It is an unparalleled record. It seems ironical that these very skilled craftsmen are still at the bottom of the wages table, and here we are gathered today to approve an order which will ensure that they remain at the bottom willy-nilly.
I do not believe that the agricultural workers are bitter. The hon. Gentleman is good at stirring things up, but it is not my experience that they are bitter. They are not the type. If they were bitter, they would have gone on strike and taken industrial action, which they could have done with crippling effect, years ago. They are not bitter. They are relying on the Government, as they have relied in the past on Governments of both parties, to protect their interests. I hope we shall see to it that we do not forfeit the trust they are placing in the Government now.
A notable step was taken in April when the wages of agricultural workers were increased by £3·20 a week. I want to see further steps at least as big in percentage terms taken in future. I do not want the order to prevent that happening. The agricultural industry as a

whole has moved into a more prosperous era, and that prosperity must be shared by agricultural workers as well as by those who employ them.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The most unfortunate consequence of the freeze was the freeze of the Agricultural Wages Board's award to the farm workers. When I entered this House, they were at the bottom of the male earnings league. I remind the hon Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) that, despite what he said, when the Labour Government entered office the agricultural workers were the lowest paid and they were still the lowest paid when the Government left office. Neither side of the House can take credit for the situation of the farm workers. They remain at the bottom of the male workers' league today.
The agricultural worker is a very skilled man. He can turn his hand to a vast number of jobs and deal with sophisticated machinery, and he has a job which probably gives more job satisfaction than most jobs do in modern life. But, that apart, he has always been uncomplaining, and his record of increasing productivity rivals that of any other group of workers. It was a matter of regret on both sides of the House that one of the consequences of the freeze was to freeze the award to farm workers. The award had long been overdue and was in any case, in my view, too low. Nevertheless, it would have brought them nearer to a reasonable level.
The greater prosperity of the farmer has occurred for a variety of reasons, but is due largely to the increase in world primary commodity prices over the past year or two. It is greater now than ever it has been since the war. I represent an agricultural constituency, and I know that this is so. I think that most good farmers pay their workers above the minimum; many of them pay considerably above it. There was a general feeling of regret throughout the industry that the farm workers were deprived of the increase in prosperity that occurred at the same time to their employers, and the matter should be put right by this House.
The Liberal Party has always believed in a statutory prices and incomes policy.


We supported the Labour Government throughout on their prices and incomes policy. For example, we gave greater support to them on their prices and incomes policy than the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) did. He is much more concerned with faithfulness to the Labour Party in Opposition than ever he was when it was in power. I leave it at that.
I believe that in the modern sophisticated society the only way to try to adjust differentials and get a fairer and more just award is to have a prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: For lawyers.

Mr. Hooson: Yes, and business men and the rest of us. I think the only fair way is to have a prices and incomes policy, but if it is to have any meaning it must mean that advantage can be taken of it to adjust differentials and bring up the earnings of the lower-paid. What concerns hon. Members on both sides of the House is: is the Pay Board to be mandated to give a really substantial increase to the lower-paid? The prime group here in the eyes of the public is the farm workers. The industry can afford, and should pay, higher wages. The board should be virtually mandated by this House to do that. There should be an expression of view from both sides of the House that farm workers' wages should be equivalent to what can be earned in manufacturing industry because their record of productivity—6 per cent. per annum over a decade—rivals that of any other group.
I shall vote for this order because I believe in being consistent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am at least as consistent as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale with his "Little Sir Echo" cry of "Hear, hear". I believe that no prices and incomes policy can work if one tries to make an exception for a particular group. The wages board will truly have the right, I understand, to adjust wages; that is, keep top wages down.

Mr. Lewis: Except their own.

Mr. Hooson: —and bring bottom wages up. Hon. Members on both sides know that that is true. No Labour Government could govern the country in the present state of inflation without a prices

and incomes policy. This is the right policy for any Government to follow. It took the present Government two years of wasted time and effort to realise that they were up against the inevitability of a prices and incomes policy. It is right that the wages board should appreciate that it is the feeling of hon. Members in all parts of the House that the wages of agricultural workers should go up considerably in phase 2.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: At least I welcome one thing that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said—that he will support this order in the Division Lobby. I compliment him on the consistency which he and his hon. Friends have shown in pursuing their line of policy.
It appears that this debate is liable to become a little confused because we are not debating whether farm workers should have a rise in wages whether we agree on that or not, but whether the awards made by the wages board in future shall or shall not be monitored by the Pay Board. We are all agreed— there is no division on either side of the House—that the agricultural worker has done an extremely good job over the past year and deserves the best treatment he can possibly have.
I was also delighted to hear the hon Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) speaking about the level of income which has increased over the last two years through Conservative policy for the farmers of the country. The fact is that farmers are today in a better position to pay improved wages to their workers than they were when the Labour Government were in control of our affairs. I come from a farming constituency, and I do not know of any farmers who pay the minimum wage to their workers. I could not name one tonight. I cannot believe that if the wage paid by farmers was at the minimum level and there were no fringe benefits attractive to those who work on the land such workers would not turn to industry, certainly in Derbyshire near which there are such industrial areas as Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham and Derby. On the majority of farms it is not the minimum wage which is paid but a reasonable and proper living wage. I particularly welcome the


development in recent years whereby extra payments have been introduced for certain skills on the farm, such as tractor driving, caring for livestock and so on.
The House is considering whether the Pay Board should have the right in the present circumstances of the Counter-Inflation Act and phases 2 and 3 to monitor whatever awards are made to farm workers. It is eminently right that that it should do so. It does not presuppose that the Pay Board will immediately stop awards. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) talked as if he assumed that the Pay Board would automatically stop any increases announced by the Agricultural Wages Board. I do not believe this is so.
I hope that the Minister will underline this point. I do not believe that the Minister of Agriculture will not have to come here in future and justify awards made by the Agricultural Wages Board. Perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm this. There is nothing in the order which says that this will not be so. The award will have to meet the criteria of the Pay Board, and my right hon. Friend will then lay an order and will have to justify it here. In the atmosphere of tonight's debate he will not have to justify any award to farm workers.

Mr. William Baxter: Will the hon. Gentleman give us his interpretation of the order with regard to a recommendation from the Agricultural Wages Board to the Pay Board? Can the Pay Board increase the award or must it simply accept the award or decrease it?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: As I understand it, the board will be able to make recommendations to the Agricultural Wages Board. If the award is contrary to the Government's policy and that which the Pay Board is pursuing within the terms of the Counter-Inflation Act, the Pay Board will say so. As I understand it, the Pay Board is perfectly entitled to make recommendations to the Agricultural Wages Board in whatever way it wishes. That board will bear such recommendations in mind should it wish to make further recommendations. The Minister can confirm or reject those. But he will have to come to this House and

hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate the order. Therefore, I see no reason for Labour Members to get so excited and to stop this.
First, the real level of income or wages that the agricultural workers throughout the country are receiving is considerably above the minimum level. There are only exceptional cases in which the minimum applies, and many of them are fringe workers, not real agricultural workers. Secondly, we have enormously increased the level of pay for skilled agricultural workers—tractor drivers, those dealing with livestock and so on. Thirdly the hon. Gentleman should not worry, because he will have the opportunity to debate these matters, and the Pay Board is merely monitoring whatever recommendations are made within the terms of the Counter-Inflation Act. That seems to me entirely reasonable, and I sincerely hope that, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, the House will support the order when we divide.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) is under a misapprehension. As I understand it, the Pay Board will simply have power to vet recommendations or decisions made by the Agricultural Wages Board. In other words, all that the Pay Board can do is reject an increase or suggest that it be smaller. It will not intervene and say, "Farm workers are extremely low paid. The Wages Board has again brought forward a derisory increase, and it should increase farm workers' wages by about £10 a week". If it is possible or likely that the Pay Board will do that, I hope that the Minister will make it clear, but I cannot see it ever happening.
Agriculture, more than any other industry, illustrates the basic unfairness of the Government's policies. The farm workers, more than any other group, illustrate the extent to which the fundamental consequence of the Government's economic policies has been to redistribute purchasing power from the workers to owners of property and wealth. Farm workers are the lowest-paid workers in the country—the group which has suffered most under the Government's counter-inflation policy.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West tells us that the farm workers do not all receive the minimum rate. They would not have to. The fair comparison is their average earnings, which in England and Wales, for the year ending December 1972, were £23·37 for a 47·8-hour week. The figure for October 1972 in respect of manual workers covered by the Department of Employment survey was £35·82 for 45 hours, and the figure for workers in manufacturing industry was £36·20 for a 44·1-houi week.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In those figures no account is taken of the environment in which the worker is working and the fringe benefits for working in the country and on a farm.

Mr. Strang: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to knock on the head the nonsense that farm workers have a wide range of fringe benefits. The fringe benefit referred to most is the house, but a tied cottage is not a fringe benefit for the farm worker. It is a major handicap. It is one of the reasons why farm workers have not been militant.
The free milk and other benefits were totted up by the Prices and Incomes Board under the Labour Government, and the board made it absolutely clear that those benefits were trivial in terms of any comparison between workers in industry and in agriculture, respectively. We must take into consideration the superannuation schemes and other benefits that industrial workers have but farm workers do not.
On average, manufacturing workers earn about 82p an hour, whereas farm workers earned about 49p an hour before the increase. That means that manufacturing workers' rates are 67 per cent. higher. Although the £3.30 is a big increase compared with the paltry increases that wages boards have given farm workers in the past, it is small in the context of the increases in prices and the increases in wages that other workers were obtaining. The gap between the wages of workers in industry and those of agricultural workers has widened over the last year, particularly because of the Government's counter-inflation policy, which, we are laughingly told, is supposed

to be designed to help the lower-paid. What is particularly galling for farm workers is that they have seen massive increases in farm gate prices and they know that farmers are doing much better.
Can any hon. Member opposite honestly claim that farm workers are not bitter when they read that the miners and the car workers, for instance, are earning wages in excess of £30 a week, and when they experience the massive increases in the price of beef, especially after the ridiculous inquiry into the increase in beef prices that the Government commissioned at the end of last year? I have yet to meet a farm worker who is not bitter about the position.
The Agricultural Wages Board is considering an application for a reduction from 42 to 40 hours in the farm workers' working week. As I understand it, the employers oppose the application. I assume that there is no question of the wages boards agreeing to the application.
The problem of low wages for farm workers has not arisen overnight; it is of long standing. There are several ways in which the situation might be changed. The first is by industrial action. At the annual conference of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers there were resolutions calling for a strike. This was unprecedented. However, hon. Members opposite know that farm workers are difficult to organise, because they are in small groups. A farmer with two or three workers has a close relationship with his workers. It is not the same on a farm as in a firm with 200 or 300 workers, where, perhaps, the employer is remote. It is difficult to conceive of there being concerted industrial action in agriculture, so it is unlikely that there will be industrial action to increase agricultural wages, unless we get the support of other unions, with the drivers who take the milk and other commodities from farms supporting the poor farm workers.
The second way of gaining an increase in wages would be by Government intervention. This is the way in which it should be done. However, I cannot see this Government doing it, for they have been concerned with keeping down farm workers' wages.
The third way is for the Agricultural Wages Board to start to do something about closing the gap between the wages


of workers in industry and those of agricultural workers. As a group, the independent members of the Agricultural Wages Board have, more than anybody else, been responsible for holding down agricultural wages over the past years. There is no hope of ending the degradingly low agricultural wages unless the board can be shamed into treating the employers' arguments with the disdain that they deserve and granting an increase to agricultural workers of, say, £10 a week to make their wages more commensurate with those earned by industrial workers.
There is no question of the Pay Board doing anything favourable. All it can do is to tell the Agricultural Wages Board, "We are sorry, but the increase you recommend does not conform to Government policy. It cannot be justified on grounds of productivity." The Pay Board should tell the Agricultural Wages Board that a much higher increase can be granted.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I would have more respect for the last speaker and for the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) in their desire to close the gap between agricultural and industrial wages if they did not spend so much time in bemoaning the fact that if they closed the gap they would have to pay the fair cost of production for home-produced foods as they do for motor cars, clothing, television sets and most other things which they buy.
Members of the Labour Party spend nine times more time complaining about any rise in food prices, however justifiable by increased costs, than in drawing attention to the backward nature of agricultural workers' wage awards. That has gone on for many years. I regretted very much that the proposed award was caught by the last freeze. What puzzled me subsequently was that, although the effect of the freeze was undoubtedly to delay the proposed award, increasing minimum wages, it did not seem to become illegal for farmers voluntarily to pay increased wages. I regret that that was left in doubt, because some farmers felt free to increase their wages while others felt that they must abide by the apparent prohibition arising from the delay in the increase in the minimum.
Most farm workers' wages exceed the minimum, but they are often increased by the amount of the increase awarded on the minimum, when an award is made.
In considering the proposed system of vetting proposals I hope it will be made clear that the wages board can review the pay of all agricultural workers and take extra productivity into account.
The Member for Renfrew, West mentioned the great rise in farmers' incomes between one recent year and the next. Of course, a good year following a bad will always result in a large proportionate increase. At a time of good harvests it is usual to pay a bonus. Bonuses go back far beyond pay boards and prices and incomes policies. They are part of the pattern of agriculture and I hope they are outside the prices and incomes policy. In a good year it is the custom of farmers to make some reward to their men who helped to gain the harvest, and it is the proper course for a farmer to take.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: Although I understand the logic of the order I take exception to its loose phraseology. Paragraph 3, which deals with the approval of agricultural wages orders, seems to contain a prohibition. The Agricultural Wages Board has been the most reactionary board one can envisage, and for that reason I do not understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) seeks to preserve the status quo. I should prefer the order to nullify the Agricultural Wages Board and provide for the pay of agricultural workers to be decided by the Pay Board. My belief is that agricultural workers should have better wages. The Pay Board is prohibited from making any decision other than to accept or reduce the recommendation of the board. That prohibition should be removed.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) raised a valid point, which I wish to emphasise. Because of the healthy nature of the industry, many farmers are able and willing to pay higher wages. Are they prohibited by the order from paying higher wages than they are paying at the moment? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will give her interpretation of the order.
The Minister reported to the House yesterday on his great achievement in Brussels for the agriculture industries in the Common Market countries. Did the Minister have regard to the full implications of that decision, and were the wages of the French and British agricultural workers taken into account by him in reaching that conclusion? The Minister said yesterday that he was prepared to allow the price of milk to be increased by 5½ per cent. We do not know what will be the beef subsidy, but, whatever it is, it presupposes a heavier burden on either the taxpayer or the consumer. It will be to the considerable advantage of the farmer and will build up problems in the immediate and foreseeable future. Before approving the order, we are entitled to understand the Minister's thinking and to know whether he has had regard to all the circumstances which brought about the conclusions which he was so proud to present to the House yesterday, and for which he was pleased to receive the approval of his colleagues.
I believe that the Minister does not fully understand the implications of the decision. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us the wage structure of British and French agricultural workers which led to the justification of a 5½ per cent. increase in milk prices. The order has not been properly thought out, and many questions will remain unanswered because of lack of knowledge and understanding of the problem.

11.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): This has been a very full debate, and I shall not be able to do justice to all the points which have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) put his ringer on the truth when he said that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) had gone wide of the order and completely off the subject that we should be discussing.
I will not make any general comments on the remarks of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West, but I must refer to one point he made. I refer to the headline in the Sun. I cannot take any responsibility for headlines in any newspaper, but the hon. Gentleman well knows that the percentage referred to by my right

hon. Friend yesterday relates specifically to any increase in food prices directly attributable to our joining the Common Market. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I can take responsibility for the way in which that newspaper interprets the matter.
The effect of this order is simply to bring the fixing of agricultural wages, like that of wages in other industries, within the purview of the Pay Board; and the case which I wish to present to the House in its support is correspondingly simple.
Although we are debating this order in isolation, the House will be aware that it bears a close relation to a number of other orders which have been made under the Counter-Inflation Act. I refer not only to those orders which we have been discussing this evening, but to two orders in particular which the Opposition have not seen fit to challenge. They are first the Notification of Increases in Remuneration Order, which brings pay proposals over a wide field into the purview of the Pay Board; and, secondly, the Modification of Wages Councils Act Order, which does the same for pay proposals in the industries covered by wages councils.
The Opposition have not challenged those two orders, but they have challenged this one. What inference can be drawn from this? It is that the Opposition regard agricultural wages as being in some way a special case, in that they relate to the lower paid. One takes special note of the concern that is felt in the House on this matter, but nothing that has been said tonight convinces me that special treatment of this kind is justified. Indeed the argument that agricultural wages were a special case and should be specially exempted from the ambit of the counter-inflation programme was raised in the House when the stage 1 legislation was being discussed and was decisively rejected by the House.
Although the award made by the Agricultural Wages Board fell within the period of standstill and had to be deferred because agricultural workers had received an award within 12 months, they were—exceptionally—the one group of workers who received that pay award in


full. This gives some indication that the Government were conscious of the fact that those workers fell within the ambit of the lower paid. The general position of the lower paid is being actively studied by the Government. It is not possible at this time to make any announcement on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked whether there would be delay in implementing the Agricultural Wages Board's proposals while the Pay Board considers the matter. The Pay Board will have up to eight weeks to consider the Agricultural Wages Boards' proposals. But this does not necessarily mean an extra eight weeks before a wages board's award takes effect. There is customarily an interval between the Board formulating proposals and giving effect to them; the Pay Board process will be fitted into that interval. We could have invoked the procedure under Section 8(1)(b) of the Counter-Inflation Act if the award appeared to be out of line with the pay code, but we considered that the present procedure would be less delaying.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough also asked what would happen if the Pay Board refused approval. The Agricultural Wages Board will have to reconsider its proposals in the light of the Pay Board's advice and frame new ones which are consistent with the pay and prices code.
My hon. Friend also asked whether the Pay Board had special criteria for agricultural workers. The only criteria laid down are those in the pay code for stage 2. Within those limits the Pay Board will be free to work out its own approach to the problem of doing justice as between different groups of workers.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made the point, with which I concur, that the wages of agricultural workers are low and that they are most certainly a group in which the Pay Board, looking over relativities between workers, will have a special interest.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) asked whether the Pay Board could study and report on agri-

cultural wages for phase 3. The Government can ask the Pay Board to consider and report on the pay of particular classes of workers and how they should be treated in phase 3. It is open to the National Union of Agricultural Workers to request that this be done.

Mr. Strang: Will the hon. Lady answer one straightforward question? Can she conceive of a situation where the Pay Board refuses to authorise an increase decided by the Agricultural Wages Board on the ground that it is too low to close the gap between agricultural workers and those in other industries?

Mrs. Fenner: I think it unlikely that the Agricultural Wages Board would put forward a claim which was too low and did not meet the criteria contained in stage 2.

Mr. David Clark: Will the hon. Lady answer a simple question? If the Pay Board feels that the Agricultural Wages Council's offer is too low, can it increase the offer? Yes or no?

Mr. Strang: The answer is "No".

Mrs. Fenner: I think that the Pay Board's function is to ensure that the code is observed—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Does not the hon. Lady know?

Mrs. Fenner: It sets limits on awards. If an award was within the limits, the board should approve it. But it could make comments. I cannot say any more than that.
The order is one which stands on the simple footing of equality of treatment. There is no question of discrimination against agricultural workers. On the contrary, if the order had not been made and agricultural wages had alone been exempt from consideration by the Pay Board, this would clearly have involved discrimination against other classes of workers. The making of the order was therefore entirely in line with the Government's approach to the counter-inflation programme, which we have always insisted must apply right across the board and without exceptions.
I have made the point that the general position of the lower paid is being actively studied by the Government, and also that the Pay Board is in a position —certainly on request, and the NUAAW is at liberty to make a request—to consider the relative positions of the lower-paid.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Before the hon. Lady sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I think that the hon. Lady had sat down.

Mr. Hughes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady had sat down.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 271.

Division No. 119.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mackie, John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.


Ashley, Jack
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Maclennan, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin


Barnes, Michael
Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David


Baxter, William
Garrett, W. E.
Marsden, F.


Beaney, Alan
Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Golding, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Bidwell, Sydney
Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R.C. (s'hampton, Itchen)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hamling William
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Hardy Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Robert c. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morris, Rt, Hn. John (Aberavon)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland


Buchan, Norman
Horam John
Murray, Ronald King



Horam, John
Murray, Ronald King


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oakes, Gordon


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Odgen, Eric


Cant, R.B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
O'Halloran, Michael


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Malley, Brian


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oram, Bert


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hunter, Adam
Orbach Maurice


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur


Concannon, J.D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom




Perry, Ernest G.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cunningham Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwayn (W.Ham, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, T.Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kaufman, Gernald
Radice, Giles


Davies Ifor (Gower)
Kelley, Richard
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davies, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kerr, Russell
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)



Kinnock Neil



Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Richard Ivor


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamond, James
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dempsey, James
Latham, Arthur
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Doig, Peter
Lawson, George
Roderick, Caerwvn E. (Brc'n &amp; R'dnor)


Dormand, J.D.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)



Leonard Dick
Rose, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn William (Kilmarnock)


Dunn, James A
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, Ted


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin Charles
Sandelson, Neville


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ellis, Tom
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ewing, Harry
McGuire, Michael
Sillars, James


Faulds, Andrew
Machin, George
Silverman, Julius


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Skinner, Dennis




Small, William
Torney, Tom
Whitlock, William


Spearing, Nigel
Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Spriggs, Leslie
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Stallard, A. W.
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Walden, Brian (B'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Strang, Gavin
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Woof, Robert


Summerskill, Hn. Or. Shirley
Wallace, George



Swain, Thomas
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff.W.)
Weitzman, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Tinn, James
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)



Tomney, Frank
Whitehead, Phillip





NOES


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fortescue, Tim
Lambton, Lord


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Foster, Sir John
Lamont, Norman


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fowler, Norman
Lane, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Fox, Marcus
Le Marchant, Spencer


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gardner, Edward
Loveridge, John


Batsford, Brian
Gibson-Watt, David
Luce, R. N.


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
MacArthur, Ian


Benyon, W.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
McLaren, Martin


Biffen, John
Goodhew, Victor
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Blaker, Peter
Gorst John
Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)


Body, Richard
Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gray Hamish
Maddan, Martin


Bowden, Andrew
Green, Alan
Madel, David


Bray, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Maginnis, John E.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maude, Angus




Mawby, Ray


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)




Buck, Antony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hall-Davis, A.G.F.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Burden, F. A.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chapman, Sydney
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger


Chateway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan
Money, Ernie


Chichester-Clark, R.
Havers, Sir Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper


Cockeram, Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Cooke, Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Coombs, Derek
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morrison, Charles


cooper, A. E.
Holland, Philip
Mudd, David



Holt, Miss Mary
Murton, Oscar


Cordle, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Corfield, Rt. Hn.Sir Frederick
Hordern, Peter
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Costain, A.P.




Critchley, Julian
Hornby, Richard
Nott, John


Crouch, David
Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Onslow, Cranley


Crowder, F P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Openheim, Mrs. Sally




Orr, Capt. L/ P. S.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Osborn, John


Dean, Paul
Hunt, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dixon, Piers
James, David
Parkinson Cecil


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Peel, John


Douglas-Home. Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Dykes, Hugh
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'lle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt. Kn. J. M. L.


Emery, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Fell, Anthony
Kilfedder, James
Raison, Timothy


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kimball, Marcus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Fidler, Michael
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Rees. Peter (Dover)







Rees-Davies, W. R.
Soret, Harold
Vickers, Dame Joan


Renton, Rt. Kn. Sir David
Speed, Keith
Waddingion, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Sproat, Iain
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Ridsdale, Julian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Steel, David
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stokes, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wiggin, jerry


Rost, Peter
Sutcliffe, John
Wilkinson, John


Royle, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wolrige-Gordon Patrick


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tebbit, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Temple, John M.
Worsley, Marcus


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Shersby, Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Simeons, Charles
Trafford, Dr. Anthony



Sinclair, Sir George
Trew, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Mr. Bernard weatherill


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
 Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Question accordingly negatived.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

SIGNALMAN J. T. JOHNSON (FATAL ACCIDENT)

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am grateful for the chance to raise a constituency case which has troubled me and has certainly given my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Johnson of 94, Shaftesbury Avenue, Keresley, much deep concern and regret. It concerns the death of their son, Signalman John Thomas Johnson, while on manoeuvres with the Royal Signals in Scharmstadt, Germany, on 24th September last year. This case was first brought to my attention by Councillor Tommy Ellis, who represents Keresley, and I am grateful for the assiduous way in which he has kept me in touch with the feelings of the family.
The family heard about their son's death by telegram asking them, on 24th September, to call the Army records office in Reading. They did so and they were told by that office that it knew nothing about the matter. Although Signalman Johnson died at 12.25 on Sunday 24th September it was not until the following Monday morning when Mr. Johnson senior called Germany that he found out true information. He was first told in the telegram that his son had died in a

traffic accident. His son died while asleep in a tent having been run over by an Army truck.

The Army chaplain from Bramcote barracks, just outside my constituency, visited the family that Sunday evening, but he knew nothing of the details. The burden of my story is that it took six months and nine letters to the Ministry to find out exactly the circumstances in which this soldier met his untimely death. I was particularly concerned at the lack of information which was given to the family about the way in which the body arrived in Coventry, almost as though the family had been a third party. It was the undertaker who informed them that he was collecting the body from London Airport and it was not until 3rd October, the body having been collected from London on 29th September, that a perfunctory letter arrived from the Royal Signals Regiment in Germany giving a rough outline of the circumstances of the death. It was not until 6th October that I was informed by the Minister's predecessor in a letter he wrote to me.

When the funeral took place some of the representatives of the regiment had to pay their own expenses to attend. Needless to say, the family was grateful to the individual soldiers who took that step. There was an incredible mess-up over the late Signalman Johnson's personal belongings. It seems that they went half way round the country before arriving at Keresley.

I was told in a letter from the Minister's predecessor on 25th October that the family was to contact the Soldiers'


Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association if they wanted any further information, and the Minister told me in a letter he sent on 16th November that if Mr. Johnson senior wanted to attend the inquiry he would have to pay his own expenses. So disturbed was I at having written to the Ministry several times and receiving no information that I first raised this matter in a Question answered by the Minister on 30th November. In that reply he said
The solicitor acting for the father of Private Johnson has reported that the family appreciated the sympathy and personal kindness of those who had to deal with them on behalf of the Army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November 1972; Vol. 847 c. 609.]

I submit that that is a travesty of a quotation. It is a serious misquotation of what the solicitor actually wrote to the Department.

Mr. William Wilson: It happens that my firm were the solicitors involved. In order to put the record right, I shall read the letter which was sent to the Royal Signals manning and record office. After referring to the matters to which my hon. Friend has referred the letter says:
While our Clients certainly appreciated the individual expressions of sympathy made to them by various Officers and the personal kindness of the persons with whom they have spoken they are frankly upset by the inadequacy of the information given to them and the lack of help from official circles. In particular one would suppose that some inquiry or inquest had been held and yet our Clients have received no word of this and apart from being aware that a lorry ran into the tent are ignorant as to the circumstances of their son's death.
We would therefore appreciate you advising us as to whether an inquest has been held or alternatively the date on which such an inquest will be held and whether or not our Clients would be permitted to attend either in person or by a Legal Representative. If an inquest or an inquiry has been held then it may be possible for you to provide us with a copy of the notes of evidence and verdict recorded.
We wish to stress that although our Clients have been touched by the way in which some aspects of the matter have been dealt with they do feel a sense of extreme grievance in others and you may consider this justifiable and we trust that we will hear from you soon in an effort to rectify this.
Because of my professional engagement I do not propose to comment further on the matter.

Mr. Huckfield: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the record straight and for putting the letter on record. That was the situation which obtained. The uncertainty of information represented the situation which obtained all the way through the matter until 27th March—that was six months after the unfortunate accident had occurred—despite the fact that my hon. Friend's letter was written to the hon. Gentleman's Department in November. The hon. Gentleman was still writing to me on 7th December that the family had appreciated the kindness which had been shown. That misquotes completely the letter and its intention.
I was told by the hon. Gentleman on 18th January that there was to be a court-martial on or about 30th January. That was the first that I or the family had heard about an inquiry. I was told that the charge was to be one of negligent driving. The hon. Gentleman told me in correspondence and in conversation that if Mr. Johnson wanted to attend the inquiry he would have to pay his own fare. In other words, having been kept waiting for so long for information about the death of their son, the family were told that if they wanted to find out more they would have to pay to go to the inquiry.
It was not until 13th March of this year that I was told in a letter from the hon. Gentleman that the court-martial had resulted in a non-commissioned officer being fined £40. Before then I had again raised the matter at Question Time. It was not until 27th March—that is, six months after the incident took place— that the hon. Gentleman wrote to me to tell me the result of the court-martial which was held in Verden. The corporal who was driving the vehicle, who was not the authorised driver, pleaded guilty to moving the truck after having moved a generator which was causing some disturbance to some nearby civilian families. The truck was moved after the generator had been moved. It was being driven backwards when the unfortunate accident occurred. The hon. Gentleman's letter of 27th March refers to a "momentary loss of concentration" by the driver involved.
The feelings of the family can be appreciated—they live in a mining village— when the original telegram said that their son had been killed in "a traffic accident"


and when, after six months, the final bit of information was discovered. As I have said, Mr. Johnson is a miner and lives in a mining village, which is a close community and one which I have the honour and am proud to represent.
Mr. Aldridge, of my hon. Friend's firm, wrote to the Department asking about compensation. This, again, had not so far been mentioned, and the family is still in the dark about it. He wrote on 12th April requesting further information whether the Secretary of State could issue a certificate to say that death had been attributable to service for consideration for a possible award under the Royal Warrant. I realise that there are certain difficulties involving charges under the Crown Proceedings Act, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to provide further enlightenment on the point.
The main burden of my complaint concerns the very callous, very inhuman and regrettable way in which the family was kept waiting in the dark for the whole of that Sunday, until Mr. Johnson himself had to telephone Germany to find out what had happened to his son. Then there was the manner in which the body was delivered. I have said that the body was dumped in Coventry with the same amount of ceremony as a sack of potatoes, and my constituent still feels that. Then there is the hon. Gentleman's claim that the family is somehow satisfied. Mr. Johnson wrote to me earlier this week and said:
The Ministry has still not sent us a report of the Court Martial. I am disgusted with them. I suppose it is a case of because they gave you and the solicitor a report it does not matter about us.
I sympathise with Mr. Johnson's feelings. He feels almost as though the family has been treated as a third party throughout. The lack of information, the callous way in which it has been treated, and the way in which the personal belongings were treated, have very much upset the family. It will take it a long time to recover from this.
I want to press the point about compensation. It has been raised legally by my hon. Friend's firm and I shall press it again if I cannot get a satisfactory answer tonight. Bearing in mind all the suffering which the family has gone through and

the callous treatment by the Army in keeping it waiting six months before it could find out what had happened to Private Johnson, I feel that some redress is due to the family and that some adjustment of procedures is called for. I have pressed the hon. Gentleman on this point before. If this is the way the Army proposes to treat the families of those who have been killed or injured on manoeuvres or exercises, I do not think much of the way it treats the basic ingredients of any fighting force.
The hon. Gentleman himself told me in his letter of 27th March that he was concerned that I did not receive the information until that date, bearing in mind that the court-martial took place at the end of January. I hope that he will elaborate further on the question why, since the court-martial took place at the beginning of this year, he was not able to tell me about it until two months ago.
This has been a tragic case, certainly a tragedy for the Johnson family. I hope the hon. Gentleman will do something to lighten their burden this evening.

11.56 p.m.

The Under-Secretary for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Blaker): I am glad that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) had the opportunity to raise this matter tonight because it gives me the opportunity of clearing up what I think are some substantial misconceptions on his part, which I have no doubt are shared by Mr. and Mrs. Johnson and others. The House, I know, will share my deep regret at the tragic and untimely death of Signalman Johnson. Although I cannot agree with all the criticisms the hon. Member made of the Army's handling of the case, this in no sense detracts from the sincerity of my sympathy for the relatives. I think the hon. Member would concede this because I have corresponded with him a great deal, whatever other criticisms he may have made. I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of the main points with which he intended to deal.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) referred to a solicitor's letter. If he feels that I misrepresented what was said in that letter I regret it. I shall look carefully at the full text of the letter and what I said in the answer I gave in the House. The


hon. Member for Nuneaton said that Mr. Johnson felt aggrieved that I had not sent him the letter of 27th March in which I gave the full facts. I proceeded on the assumption that the hon. Member would pass on the letter to Mr. Johnson which I think is the normal assumption on which Ministers operate in cases of this kind. I regret it if Mr. Johnson felt that I had neglected him.
The circumstances of the unfortunate accident in which Signalman Johnson died are, very briefly, that while taking part in a field training exercise in Germany on 24th September last year he was one of three soldiers sleeping in a tent when an Army lorry ran over one side of it. Signalman Johnson died in hospital about an hour later from the injuries he received. The letter of condolence written by the commanding officer to Mr. Johnson on the day of the accident did not arrive at its destination, owing to an unfortunate delay in the post. A letter which normally would take a much shorter time, took 10 days. In it the commanding officer gave a brief summary of the facts of the accident. For reasons that I shall explain he was not able to give them all. In view of the fact that the letter had not arrived at the time the hon. Member wrote to the Department, I quite understand Mr. Johnson feeling that he had not received adequate information.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton first wrote about this distressing case on 2nd October, when he passed on to my right hon. and noble Friend a complaint that the soldier's father was upset about the lack of help and information he had received from the Army concerning his son's death. My predecessor replied to the hon. Member on 6th October similarly giving brief details of the fatal accident and telling him that as soon as the official inquiries had been completed we would be writing to Mr. Johnson giving him a full account of the accident, although there was likely to be some delay.
I should like to give the House a summary of the procedure which is laid down by the Army for dealing with cases of fatal accidents overseas, and which was followed in the case of Signalman Johnson. The next of kin are informed immediately. This is done personally by

a member of the unit if they are in immediate reach; otherwise by telegram. The latter was done in this case. The telegram expressed condolences and said that Signalman Johnson had died earlier that day in hospital, following a tragic traffic accident.
The telegram also informed Mr. Johnson that an officer would call that day to discuss funeral arrangements. This is our normal practice. The purpose of this visit, which in this case was made by an Army chaplain, is to extend the sympathy of the Army Board, to assist the family to decide on funeral arrangements, and to see whether there are any other problems with which the military authorities can assist. Since the visiting officer comes from the nearest military unit, neither he nor the man in the record office at Reading, whose telephone number was given in the telegram, would be familiar with the deceased soldier, nor would they be aware of any more of the circumstances of the death than had been told to the family.
The sole purpose of these early contacts is to provide a source of advice to the relatives, especially about the funeral arrangements. I should like to put the record straight on the hon. Member's allegation about the method of delivery of the coffin. With respect, I cannot accept his criticism. The coffin was flown from Germany on 29th September. It was collected at Heathrow by undertakers who regularly act as our agents and was delivered the same day by them to the undertakers in Coventry who were engaged by Signalman Johnson's family. The Coventry undertakers had no complaint to make about these arrangements.
Secondly, it is the commanding officer's practice to write immediately to the next-of-kin. I have explained that this was done on this occasion, although unfortunately the letter was delayed. Thirdly, the adjutant and three of Signalman Johnson's friends in the regiment attended the funeral. They were able to talk to Mr. Johnson about the circumstances of his son's death. I am confident that at this time Mr. Johnson would have been told most of what he wanted to know about the accident.
In the meantime, on 26th September Mr. Johnson had telephoned the adjutant asking to know the cause of death and


had been given orally brief details of the accident. On 16th October, in accordance with our normal procedure, Mr. Johnson was sent a letter from the Ministry of Defence conveying an expression of the Army Board's sympathy. It explained why we could not then give him the further information which he was anxious to have about the accident. For the reasons I have mentioned, the visit of the soldiers and the adjutant at the time of the funeral, Mr. Johnson must by that time at least have had a general picture of the circumstances in which the accident occurred.
I now turn to the reasons why we have had to keep Mr. Johnson waiting for so long for a full and written report. This is the crux of the hon. Member's argument about delay.
I shall explain the procedure as simply as I can. When an accident occurs—and certainly in the case of a fatal accident —it is followed by an immediate local investigation into the circumstances to record the facts and to determine whether any further action, such as a board of inquiry, is appropriate. Such an investigation was carried out in this case on 24th September, the day of the accident, by the Royal Military Police who submitted an initial case report the next day. This was followed by a detailed investigation leading to a full case report on 11th October. The report of these investigations is analogous to the civil police proceedings which would follow a fatal traffic accident in this country. In neither case would the results of the investigation be divulged before any hearing of charges arising out of the incident since to do so could prejudice the position of anyone accused of such charges.
As in comparable cases in civilian life, at this stage, as at all stages, until the full judicial procedures have been completed the full facts could not be given to Mr. and Mrs. Johnson as court martial proceedings were likely or in progress. To give the Army's version of the facts might have prejudiced the defence of the accused. This is the basis of the sub judice rule with which hon. Members will be familiar and which is regarded as an important feature in ensuring that our legal system is fair.
It is difficult to see how more information could have been given formally and

officially to Signalman Johnson's parents than was contained in the commanding officer's letter. In addition they must have learned a good deal about the circumstances at the time of the funeral.
After studying the military police reports and after advice from the Army Legal Service, the commanding officer decided on 30th October that there were grounds for a board of inquiry. Such a board is aimed not only at establishing the facts but also at determining what changes in procedures, if any, are necessary to avoid a recurrence.
However, the reports indicated that there were grounds for disciplinary action, which is not surprising, and this meant that the board could not sit until action had been taken, since to do so could prejudice the case against the accused and hamper investigations. The legal examination of the disciplinary aspects of the case had already begun on receipt of the full military police report, and revealed the necessity for further technical evidence and tests of the vehicle involved in the accident.
It is difficult to carry out these legal processes quickly—I think that the hon. Member will agree that this is also the case in the civilian courts—but by 24th November the Army legal services were able to advise that application should be made for the driver of the lorry to be tried by court-martial. On 7th December, therefore, the court was convened for 30th January, giving time for the appointment of members and officers of the court, and in particular for the provision of legal aid and counsel for the accused, and for the accused's counsel to be properly briefed.
The court-martial was held on 30th January, and the confirmed findings and sentence were promulgated to the accused soldier on 13th March. On the same day I wrote to the hon. Member informing him of the findings. There was some delay in the process of confirmation because the record of the proceedings of the court was not received until 27th February, 28 days later, from the civilian firm employed to provide it. I regret that. Not until then could confirmation of the findings take place. Once the findings of the court-martial had been confirmed, the board of inquiry was held,


but, because of the hon. Member's interest in the circumstances of the accident, I took the unusual step of preparing a summary of the events from the proceedings of the court-martial, and this was sent to the hon. Member on 27th March instead of awaiting the findings of the board, which, as it happened, had nothing to add about the circumstances of the accident.
I have been asked about compensation. Mr. Johnson's solicitors have raised the question of a claim in respect of his son's death, and the hon. Member referred this to me on 13th April. This is a matter which needs to be discussed with the Department of Health and Social Security, and my Department is now doing this. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible, and I will take the opportunity of explaining Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947.
The hon. Member may wish to be aware that Singnalman Johnson was a contributor to the Single Soldiers' Dependants Fund, and that a payment was made from the fund to Mr. Johnson four days after his son's death.
On reviewing the course of events in this sad case, I believe that Signalman Johnson's unit acted promptly and correctly, and that all reasonable help was offered to the family by the Army at the time of their bereavement. I understand and sympathise with the family's desire to have the fullest possible details of the soldier's death, but unhappily the full and formal record could not be given to them any sooner than it was because of the legal and disciplinary aspects of the case. The

situation would have been no different had the case been before the civil courts. There is no evidence of any negligence or lack of urgency on the part of the Army in dealing with these matters, which often take considerably longer to conclude in the civil courts.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: rose—

Mr. Blaker: I have little time left.
My investigations into this case confirm my view that no general instructions can be given on the disclosure of details to families, since the circumstances of every fatal accident and the proceedings which take place afterwards are never identical. I can only assure the House that in this sad and often harrowing side of the affairs of my Department all concerned are deeply conscious of the need for the utmost urgency and the greatest care and understanding in the manner in which tragic cases like this are handled; and that to the extent that we may be able to speed up the provision of information in individual cases in the light of the points made in this debate we shall of course do so.
In this sad side of the Department's affairs we receive more compliments than complaints. I should like to read a short extract from a letter I received quite by chance today from the parent of a soldier who has recently been severely injured in an accident in Germany. He writes:
I have had the greatest kindness and consideration from your department. What has been done for my unfortunate son and for my wife and self has been beyond praise.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.